73
7781 2019 August 2019 Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Cevat Giray Aksoy, Panu Poutvaara

Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    6

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

7781 2019

August 2019

Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Cevat Giray Aksoy, Panu Poutvaara

Page 2: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

Impressum:

CESifo Working Papers ISSN 2364-1428 (electronic version) Publisher and distributor: Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo GmbH The international platform of Ludwigs-Maximilians University’s Center for Economic Studies and the ifo Institute Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany Telephone +49 (0)89 2180-2740, Telefax +49 (0)89 2180-17845, email [email protected] Editor: Clemens Fuest www.cesifo-group.org/wp

An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded · from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com · from the RePEc website: www.RePEc.org · from the CESifo website: www.CESifo-group.org/wp

Page 3: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

CESifo Working Paper No. 7781 Category 4: Labour Markets

Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where?

Abstract About 1.4 million refugees and irregular migrants arrived in Europe in 2015 and 2016. We model how refugees and irregular migrants are self-selected. Using unique datasets from the International Organization for Migration and Gallup World Polls, we provide the first large-scale evidence on reasons to emigrate, and the self-selection and sorting of refugees and irregular migrants for multiple origin and destination countries. Refugees and female irregular migrants are positively self-selected with respect to education, while male irregular migrants are not. We also find that both male and female migrants from major conflict countries are positively self-selected in terms of their predicted income. For countries with minor or no conflict, migrant and non-migrant men do not differ in terms of their income distribution, while women who emigrate are positively self-selected. We also analyze how border controls affect destination country choice.

JEL-Codes: J150, J240, O150.

Keywords: refugees, self-selection, human capital, predicted income.

Cevat Giray Aksoy European Bank for Reconstruction and

Development London / United Kingdom

[email protected]

Panu Poutvaara ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic

Research at the University of Munich Poschingerstrasse 5

Germany – 81679 Munich [email protected]

We are grateful to Nuno Nunes, Ivona Zakoska-Todorovska, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) for kindly providing the Flow Monitoring Surveys. We also thank Giaomo Battiston, Michal Burzynski, Daniele Coen-Pirani, Ralph De Haas, Guido Friebel, Yvonne Giesing, Thomas Ginn, Sergei Guriev, Hubert Jayet, Till Nikolka, Caglar Ozden, Carla Rhode and participants at the AFD-World Bank Migration and Development Conference (2019), CEPR-LSE Migration Workshop (2019), CEPS, CERDI, CESifo Conference on Employment and Social Protection, Oxford COMPAS and Queen Mary Forced Displacement Conference, EPCS (2019), IZA Annual Migration Meeting (2019), OECD Migration Conference (2018), SOLE (2019), Silvaplana Political Economy Workshop (2019), University of Glasgow Migration and Mobility Workshop (2019), University of Pittsburgh Migration Workshop (2019) and University of Trento for their helpful comments. Views presented are those of the authors and not necessarily of the EBRD, IOM, or any other organization. All interpretations, errors, and omissions are our own.

Page 4: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

2

1. Introduction

The 1951 Refugee Convention and its extension in 1967 define a refugee as a person who is

outside his or her country of nationality “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for

reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political

opinion,” and is unable or unwilling to return there. The Convention forbids returning a

refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom would be threatened due to persecution

(UNHCR, 1967). An irregular migrant is broadly defined as a person who travels abroad

voluntarily in search of economic opportunities but has no legal right to remain in the

intended destination country. Distinguishing between refugees and irregular migrants is

complicated: an irregular migrant has a strong incentive to claim to be a refugee to obtain

permission to stay. Receiving countries, instead, may aim to reduce the numbers of refugees

by tightening the burden of proof for persecution.

Nearly 66 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide at the end of 2016

(UNHCR, 2017). The total number of people seeking safety across international borders as

refugees reached 22.5 million, with more than half of all refugees worldwide coming from

only three countries: Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Syria (UNHCR, 2017). In 2016, largest

numbers of refugees came from countries in Asia and Africa, and nine of ten largest numbers

of refugees hosted were also in countries in Asia and Africa, with Germany being the only

European country on the list (see Figure 1).

Although most refugees stay in developing countries (Chin and Cortes 2015; Hatton

2016), about 1.6 million refugees and irregular migrants arrived in Europe between January

2015 and December 2017 (see Figure 2). About 1 million arrived in 2015 alone, with more

than 800,000 reaching Europe by sea from Turkey to Greece (UNHCR, 2018). The present

migration crisis differs from that in the 1990s in three crucial respects, as summarized by

Dustmann et al. (2017). First, the current crisis has had a much stronger political impact on

Europe, which was already divided by populist and separatist national movements and

weakened by the Great Recession and the Eurozone crisis. Second, the current crisis involves

multiple actors over which Western nations have much weaker influence than in conflicts in

the 1990s. Third, the refugees arriving in Europe are perceived to be culturally more distant

than those in the early 1990s.

As policymakers try to make sense of a complex reality, it is important to understand

the self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants in terms of their skills and demographic

characteristics. This is the focus of our paper. We provide the first large-scale systematic

Page 5: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

3

evidence on the motivations, self-selection, and intended sorting of refugees and irregular

migrants from multiple countries of origin. Our main data set is from 2015, and 2016 Flow

Monitoring Surveys (FMS) carried out in Europe as part of the Displacement Tracking

Matrix of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). In these surveys, migrants

were asked about their demographic characteristics, intended destination countries, and

reasons for leaving their home countries.1 The large sample size of FMS allows us to analyze

data on nearly 19,000 refugees and irregular migrants aged 14 and over. We combine FMS

with Gallup World Polls to understand how migrant groups are self-selected from the source

population in terms of observable characteristics and predicted income. In addition to Flow

Monitoring Surveys carried out in Europe, we have access to Flow Monitoring Surveys

carried out in Turkey from 2016 to 2018, with more than 12,000 respondents, and IAB-

BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany from 2015 and 2016, which covers about

4,000 adult refugees in Germany.

Motivations of migrants, their self-selection in terms of socio-demographic

characteristics, and their intended destination countries are important for several reasons.

First, knowing the motivations of migrants helps to distinguish between the refugee crisis and

challenges associated with irregular migration and helps to plan optimal policies to alleviate

the humanitarian crisis.2 Second, refugees’ self-selection has implications for rebuilding their

home countries. The more skilled refugees are, the more difficult it is to fill the gap they

leave once the country enters the reconstruction stage. Third, knowing the skill distribution

and intended destinations of refugees and irregular migrants who make it to the transit

countries is helpful in planning integration policies, and thereby contributes to social stability

in host countries and in intended destination countries. In 2015 and 2016, concerns about

refugees and irregular migrants resulted in the re-introduction of border controls inside the

Schengen area, disrupting the central principle of intra-EU free mobility and intra-European

trade and supply chains. The refugee crisis also played a central role in the Leave campaign

against the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (despite the United

Kingdom being outside the Schengen area and therefore relatively unaffected by the refugee

1 We use the term “refugees and irregular migrants” to refer to individuals surveyed in Flow Monitoring

Surveys. We will sometimes refer to each group separately. We will also sometimes refer to both groups as

migrants. 2 Irregular migrants do not have a legal right to stay in their intended destination country, but returning them to

their country of origin is often costly and complicated. Irregular migrants often work in the shadow economy

and pose a security concern as they have not been subject to normal security screening, and may resort to crime.

They also face a higher risk of becoming a victim of crime, and their human rights are infringed in many transit

and destination countries (UNHCR, 2008).

Page 6: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

4

crisis). Worries about immigration have powered the rise of populist parties and candidates in

Austria (Halla et al. 2017), Denmark (Dustmann et al., forthcoming), France (Edo et al.,

2019), Germany (Otto and Steinhardt 2014), and Greece (Dinas et al. 2019).

To preview the results from the 2015 and 2016 FMSs, we find that 77 percent of

respondents had emigrated mainly due to conflict or persecution, 21 percent for economic

reasons or lack of basic services like healthcare, and 2 percent due to natural disasters or

other reasons. However, there are major differences in main reasons to emigrate between

different nationalities. More than 90 percent of respondents from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia,

Sudan, and Syria emigrated because of conflict or persecution, while this share was less than

10 percent for respondents from Algeria and Morocco. Young people are more likely to

emigrate from all country groups. Among men, singles are more likely to migrate, while

married women are more likely to emigrate than single women, reflecting that women

typically migrate with their spouse.

We find important differences in how refugees and irregular migrants are self-selected

relative to the country of origin population in terms of their education. Both male and female

refugees from countries suffering from major conflict with 1000 or more battle-related deaths

(Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria) are positively self-selected with respect

to secondary and tertiary education. Female irregular migrants also are positively self-

selected with respect to their education, although not as strongly as female refugees. Male

irregular migrants, instead, do not differ much from non-migrants in terms of their education.

To further investigate selection, we also compare the predicted earnings of refugees

and irregular migrants and non-migrants. We find that refugees and irregular migrants are

strongly positively self-selected in terms of their predicted earnings in all country groups

(that is, major conflict and minor or no conflict). When we compare predicted earnings by

migrants with non-migrants separately for men and women, we find that men are more

strongly positively self-selected from all country groups.

Among migrants surveyed in Turkey, 69 percent of respondents had emigrated mainly

due to conflict or persecution, and 25 percent for economic reasons or lack of basic services

like healthcare. Relative to migrants in Europe, the share emigrating due to conflict or

persecution is drastically lower in Turkey among Afghanis and somewhat lower among

Iraqis, Syrians, and Somalians. Among migrants from Iran, the share emigrating due to

conflict or persecution is, in contrast, higher in Turkey.

Migrant self-selection is of major importance for both origin and destination

countries. Building on Roy (1951), Borjas (1987) showed that if skills were sufficiently

Page 7: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

5

transferable across countries, the theory suggests that migrants from a less egalitarian to a

more egalitarian country should come from the lower end of the skill distribution, and

migrants from a more egalitarian to a less egalitarian country should come from the upper

end of the skill distribution. Given that European countries have much narrower income

differences than African and Middle Eastern countries, Roy-Borjas model suggests that

economic migrants from these regions to European welfare states should come from the

lower end of the skill distribution. Subsequently, Grogger and Hanson (2011) presented a

model that also builds on the Roy model but assumes linear utility and absolute cost of

migration, instead of time-equivalent costs as in Borjas (1987). The model by Grogger and

Hanson (2011) predicts that migrants are also generally positively self-selected from less

egalitarian countries and that the sorting of migrants depends on relative skill prices in

different destinations. Therefore, more highly educated migrants are more likely to settle in

countries that offer high rewards for skill.

Deciding whether to migrate is a complicated process. It is often difficult to

distinguish between refugees and those migrating for other reasons but claiming to be

refugees. Economic incentives can be expected to play an important role even for those

leaving countries suffering from civil war. Understanding migrants’ decision-making

processes helps to plan policies that alleviate migration pressure resulting from a lack of

economic opportunities. Liquidity constraints and immigration restrictions can mean that the

poorest simply cannot migrate, and could help to explain why the highly-skilled have been

found to be more mobile (Docquier, Lowell and Marfouk 2009). Research has also shown

that low growth, high (youth) unemployment and environmental problems are powerful push

factors for international migration in poor countries of origin (Beine and Parsons 2015;

Cattaneo and Peri 2016; Hatton 2016; Mayda 2010).

In this paper, we make six main contributions. First, we provide a theoretical model of

refugee self-selection in the presence of risks related to staying in an unsafe country and how

it differs from the self-selection of economic migrants, building upon Borjas (1987) and

Grogger and Hanson (2011). Second, we provide the first large-scale evidence on the

motivations of migrants in the European transit countries in 2015 and 2016, distinguishing

refugees and (irregular) economic migrants. Third, we document how recent flows of

refugees and irregular migrants in transit countries and refugees who made it to Germany are

self-selected from the source population in terms of various characteristics, like gender, age,

and education. Fourth, we analyze how self-selection differs between migrants, whose main

reason to emigrate is conflict or persecution, and migrants who emigrate for other reasons.

Page 8: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

6

Fifth, we analyze how demographic characteristics differ by intended destination countries.

Sixth, we look at self-selection into Turkey as the main transit country.

On the theory side, we show that extending the framework developed by Roy (1951)

and Borjas (1987) to account for risks associated with conflict or persecution can explain why

migrants from countries facing a major conflict or large-scale repression are positively self-

selected, even when returns to skill in those countries would be higher than in the destination

countries.3 This positive self-selection from countries plagued by major conflict arises

without assuming borrowing constraints and is contrary to the intuition that migrants from

more unequal countries should be negatively self-selected. Borrowing constraints would

further strengthen the result as those with more education are likely to have more resources

that allow them to leave, and those able to leave are likely to want to do so in times of major

conflict, even when returns to skills in Europe would be relatively low.

Although there is a large literature on migrant self-selection, its focus has been on

economic migrants (see Borjas 1987; Chiquiar and Hanson 2005; Hatton and Williamson

1998; Fernandez-Huertas Moraga 2011; Grogger and Hanson 2011; Abramitzky et al. 2012;

Belot and Hatton 2012; Parey et al. 2017; Borjas et al. 2019). Yet, refugee migration has been

significant throughout the history, with the United States being the most prominent

destination. Religious minorities fleeing persecution played an important role in early

colonies. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the United States maintained open borders to

European immigrants, whether economic migrants or refugees and these flows decisively

shaped America (Abramitzky and Boustan 2017; Bandiera et al. 2013).

Research related to refugee migration has tended to focus on assimilation, and the

effects on countries of origin or receiving countries, instead of self-selection, or using refugee

flows as an exogenous source of variation to study questions where identification is otherwise

difficult. Cortes (2004) compares human capital investments and earnings growth between

refugees and economic migrants who arrived in the United States from 1975 to 1980. She

finds that refugees invested more in human capital and made greater earnings gains, which

can be explained by refugees having longer expected time horizon in the host country as they

lack the option of returning to their country of origin. Waldinger (2010) uses the exogenous

drop in faculty quality following Nazis dismissing all Jewish professors, as well as professors

they considered politically unreliable, to show that faculty quality has major impact on Ph.D.

3 We analyze the case in which the return to human capital is positive both in the origin and in the destination

countries. Borjas (1987) already analyzed the case in which refugee sorting arises when returns to individual-

specific skills are negatively correlated between (communist) origin and (capitalist) destination countries.

Page 9: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

7

student outcomes. Moser et al. (2014) show that refugee scientists from Nazi Germany

helped to boost US science not only through their own direct contributions but also by

attracting new researchers to their fields. Hornung (2014) goes even further back in history

and analyzes the impact of the 1685 settlement of French Protestants (Huguenots) who were

persecuted because of their religion in Prussia. He finds that Huguenot settlement boosted

long-run productivity of Prussian textile industry. Focusing on asylum seekers in Switzerland,

a recent paper by Couttenier et al. (2016) examines whether the past exposure to conflict in

origin countries makes migrants more prone to violence in their host country. They show that

cohorts exposed to civil conflicts during childhood are more likely to commit violent crimes

than their co-nationals born after the conflict.

There are a few studies that analyze the self-selection of refugees from some

individual countries (see Cohen (2007) on immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel

and the United States and Birgier et al. (2018) on Argentinian and Chilean refugees in the

United States, Sweden, and Israel) but no systematic analysis on the self-selection of refugees

from multiple countries of origin into multiple destinations. As for the current refugee crisis,

there is an ongoing research project on recently arrived refugees in Germany, based on

surveys carried out since June 2016 by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB), the

Research Centre of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF-FZ), and the

German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) at the German Institute for Economic Research

(DIW Berlin). The first results by Brücker et al. (2016) show that refugees who have arrived

in Germany have a relatively low level of education compared with the German population.

Using the same data, Guichard (2017) compares people who came to Germany from three

conflict-affected source countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria) and two countries that are

generally considered as safe (Albania and Serbia). He finds that refugees from Afghanistan,

Iraq, and Syria are positively self-selected in terms of education relative to the population at

the origin, while migrants arriving from Albania and Serbia are negatively self-selected. Our

paper and these studies are complements. Taken together, our survey data from 2015 and

2016 and IAB data from 2016 onwards allow us to look at how migrants who applied for

asylum in Germany compare with refugees and irregular migrants in transit countries,

separately for those aiming at Germany and those aiming at other destinations.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses push and pull

factors for international migration. Section 3 outlines a theoretical framework for

understanding the self-selection mechanisms. Section 4 documents the data sources. Section

5 shows descriptive statistics. Section 6 describes the estimation strategy. Section 7 presents

Page 10: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

8

the results concerning refugee self-selection into Europe, section 8 on sorting and section 9

on border policies. Section 10 presents results on self-selection into Turkey after which

section 11 concludes.

2. Push and Pull Factors for International Migration

Most of the population growth throughout human history took place in the 20th century.

According to the United Nations, the world population reached one billion in 1804, two

billion in 1927, and three billion in 1960.4 Subsequently, it reached four billion in 1974 and

seven billion in 2011. Most of the growth has taken place in Africa and Asia. From 1950 to

2015, the share of Africa of world population increased from 9.0 percent to 16.2 percent and

that of Asia from 55.4% to 59.9 percent. At the same time, the population share of Europe

declined from 21.7 percent to 10.0 percent.5

Figure 3 depicts the change in the population living in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the

rest of the world from 1950 to 2015, as well as the United Nations projection (medium

variant) until the end of the 21st century (grey background). Fertility rates plunged first in

Europe and have subsequently declined also in most of Asia. The decline has been much

slower in Africa. Already in 2015, 25 percent of the world’s children aged 0 to 14 lived in

Africa, and this share is predicted to reach 40 percent in 2055.

The dramatic demographic divergence around the world goes together with vast

earnings gaps. Figure 4 shows the gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power

parity in 20 major countries from which refugees and other migrants to Europe along the

Mediterranean routes arrived in 2015 and 2016, as well as in Germany, Sweden, France, and

Italy as the European countries that received the largest number of asylum applications in

2015 and 2016 and Turkey as the country hosting the largest number of refugees and

irregular migrants. The gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity in

Germany and Sweden is 8 to 35 times that in Sub-Saharan African countries of origin, and

2.7 times that in Iran, which has the highest gross domestic product per capita at purchasing

power parity among major countries of origin.

Many of the countries of origin in Figure 2 suffer from civil war or at least severe

oppression. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), Afghanistan, Iraq,

4 UN (1999). 5 UN World Population Prospects (2017).

Page 11: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

9

Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria had more than 1,000 battle-related deaths

in at least one year between 2009 and 2014, with smaller numbers reported in Algeria, Egypt,

Iran, and Mali. According to Freedom House, Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya,

Somalia, Sudan, and Syria, were not free in 2015, and Nigeria, Mali, and Pakistan were only

partly free. In addition, these countries score poorly in the Political Terror Scale, which

measures violations of civil and political rights by national governments.

3. Theoretical Framework

We analyze emigration from several countries of origin into one destination. We denote

countries of origin with index k, and the potential destination with index d.6 Our model builds

on Borjas (1987) but adds into it risks related to conflict or persecution in the home country,

and risks related to migrating. As Grogger and Hanson (2011), we simplify the Borjas (1987)

framework by leaving out unobservable skill components in origin and in destination as our

data do not allow testing hypotheses related to it. We denote the human capital of individual i

beyond primary education by ℎ𝑖. The wage individual i would receive in home country k is

given by

𝑤𝑖𝑘 = exp(𝛼𝑘 + 𝑟𝑘ℎ𝑖),

in which exp(𝛼𝑘) captures the wage available to those with primary education, and 𝑟𝑘 is the

return to human capital above primary education in country k. To capture the risks associated

with conflict or persecution, we assume that there is a country-specific risk 𝑞𝑘, 0 ≤ 𝑞𝑘 < 1 of

losing the wage income and suffering an additional utility loss 𝐿𝑘, 𝐿𝑘 ≥ 0. The utility is

logarithmic in terms of consumption in case of working and linear in terms of the loss in case

the risk is realized. It is reasonable to expect 𝑞𝑘 and 𝐿𝑘 to be highest in countries suffering

war or civil war, intermediate in countries with a low-intensity conflict or persecution, while

it can be viewed as zero, or close to zero, in relatively safe countries from which migrants are

6 We model migration decision between staying in the home country or migrating into one destination, rather

than a specific choice between various European countries, as refugees and irregular migrants may face

considerable uncertainty on whether they can make it to their preferred destination country. Destination d may

be interpreted as a composite of various European countries, in which different countries receive a weight

corresponding to the conditional probability that a migrant from country k ends up there in case of reaching

Europe.

Page 12: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

10

motivated by the lack of job opportunities, rather than conflict or persecution. The expected

utility in case of no migration is therefore

𝐸𝑈𝑖𝑘 = (1 − 𝑞𝑘) log(𝑤𝑖

𝑘) − 𝑞𝑘𝐿𝑘 .

In case of a successful migration, individual i receives wage 𝑤𝑖𝑑 = exp(𝛼𝑑 + 𝑟𝑑ℎ𝑖 −

𝜋𝑘), in which exp(𝛼𝑑) depicts the wage available to natives with primary education in

country d, 𝑟𝑑 is the return to human capital above primary education in country d and 𝜋𝑘

measures the loss of potential productivity due to imperfect applicability of migrant’s human

capital and lack of language skills. It plays an equivalent role to time-equivalent migration

costs in Borjas (1987), and can differ across countries of origin, for example reflecting

linguistic distance and quality of schooling.

To capture the idea that refugees and irregular migrants face various risks also on

their way to the destination countries, we assume that migrants from country k face risk 𝑠𝑘,

0 ≤ 𝑠𝑘 < 1 of not making it to their intended destination in case of trying to migrate. This

risk could include, at its extreme, dying on the way, as well as being imprisoned or caught in

a transit country the migrant would prefer not to stay in because of lack of funds or

unexpected border closures. We denote the expected loss in case the risk is realized by

𝐿𝑀, 𝐿𝑀 ≥ 0. We also allow for gender-specific risks and norms that affect the cost of

travelling, by introducing gender dummy 𝐷𝑖 which obtains value 1 if individual i is female

and 0 if individual i is male. We expect lower female migration rates as many traditional

societies have social norms that may make travelling alone more difficult for women. As only

men are subject to conscription in most countries, it is an additional push factor for men and

has a similar effect on gender difference as a higher migration cost for women. The

differential cost for women of migrating from country k is denoted by 𝑐𝑘. Lastly, an

idiosyncratic component 𝜀𝑖 depicts various costs and benefits related to migration that are not

captured by other terms, including the valuation of different cultural norms and social

networks. The expected utility in case of migration is therefore

𝐸𝑈𝑖𝑑 = (1 − 𝑠𝑘) log(𝑤𝑖

𝑑) − 𝑠𝑘𝐿𝑀 − 𝐷𝑖𝑐𝑘 + 𝜀𝑖.

We assume that 𝜀𝑖 is independently and identically distributed and denote its density

function by f and its cumulative distribution function by F, which we assume to be

differentiable. We assume that the distribution is sufficiently wide so that under all relevant

circumstances, some people migrate and some stay.

Page 13: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

11

It is ex-ante rational to migrate if 𝐸𝑈𝑖𝑑 > 𝐸𝑈𝑖

𝑘. This simplifies into the condition

(1) 𝜀𝑖 > 𝜀𝑖∗ = [(1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 − (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑]ℎ𝑖 + (1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝛼𝑘 − (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝛼𝑑 + 𝜋𝑘 −

𝑞𝑘𝐿𝑘 + 𝑠𝑘𝐿𝑀 + 𝐷𝑖𝑐𝑘.

The probability that individual i migrates is given by

(2) 𝑝𝑖 = 1 − 𝐹(𝜀𝑖∗).

Our main testable prediction relates to migrant self-selection:

Proposition 1. Migrants are positively self-selected in terms of their human capital if

(1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 < (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑 and negatively self-selected in terms of their human capital if

(1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 > (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑.

Proof. Inserting 𝜀𝑖∗ from equation (1) into equation (2) and differentiating gives

𝑑𝑝𝑖

𝑑ℎ𝑖=

−[(1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 − (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑]𝑓(𝜀𝑖∗).

Proposition 1 shows that the self-selection of migrants with respect to their human

capital depends not just on returns to human capital, but also on risks related to conflict or

persecution if staying in the home country and risks related to potential migration. Migrants

are positively self-selected if (1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 < (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑 and negatively self-selected if

(1 − 𝑞𝑘)𝑟𝑘 > (1 − 𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑. This implies that if returns to skills are higher in the country of

origin and the country of origin is relatively safe (a low risk term 𝑞𝑘) migrants are negatively

self-selected, in line with Borjas (1987). However, if the country of origin suffers from a

sufficiently severe conflict, given by 𝑞𝑘 > 1 −(1−𝑠𝑘)𝑟𝑑

𝑟𝑘, the self-selection is reversed, and

migrants tend to come from the upper part of the skill distribution.

Refugee self-selection has been previously studied also by Borjas (1987) and Chin

and Cortes (2015), but with opposite predictions. Refugee self-selection in Borjas (1987)

refers to the peculiar case in which skills which are rewarded in the destination country are

penalized in the country of origin. When motivating this, Borjas (1987) refers to “countries

that have recently experienced a Communist takeover.” We analyze the case in which human

capital is valued both in the countries of origin and in the destination, introducing risks

related to migration and staying. According to Chin and Cortes, “refugees will be less

selected on characteristics associated with labor market success in the destination country

compared to other migrants.” According to our model, refugees’ self-selection depends on the

relative risks faced in the country of origin and during the migration process. Even if

Page 14: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

12

everyone in the country of origin faced the same risk of losing one’s job due to persecution, a

high risk could result in refugees being self-selected more strongly in terms of their skills

than irregular migrants who are not subject to persecution would be from an otherwise

identical country. The different prediction arises as Chin and Cortes (2015) model

persecution as a disamenity which does not influence the wage income in the country of

origin, while we assume that people who are subject to persecution both lose their wage

income and are subject to an additional utility loss, for example, due to maltreatment if being

imprisoned.7

The comparative statics of equation (2) also show that increases in the basic and skill-

related component of the wage in the home country (destination country) reduce (increase)

migration, in line with Borjas (1987). Higher risks related to staying in the country of origin

(migration) increase (decrease) migration. Also, policies related to border closures or

openings directly influence incentives to migrate as they influence migration costs, and

higher migration costs decrease migration. Lastly, higher gender-specific risks when traveling

alone for female migrants (or higher risks from conscription for males if staying in the

country of origin) reduce the share of female migrants; note that the model does not impose

that the share of female migrants would be lower but that this is an empirical question.

4. Data

The data used in this paper come from the Flow Monitoring Surveys (IOM), Gallup World

Polls, IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany, the World Bank’s World

Development Indicators (WDI), and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP). The level

of analysis is the individual level, and the details on how the dataset was constructed are

provided below.

4.1. Flow Monitoring Surveys

Our analysis is based on the Flow Monitoring Survey (FMS) obtained from the International

Organization for Migration (IOM). The FMS provides in-depth insight into the profile,

7 A richer model could allow for separate risks of persecution that does not involve losing one’s job as in Chin

and Cortes (2015) and persecution which involves both losing one’s job and additional utility loss, for example

due to imprisonment or militia violence that forces its victims to flee from their homes.

Page 15: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

13

motivations, experiences, and intentions of migrants. It aims to derive quantitative estimates

of the flow of (non-European) third-country nationals who are migrating towards Europe

through the so-called Central and the Eastern Mediterranean routes. The surveys are

conducted in 11 languages (Arabic, Dari, English, Farsi, French, Italian, Kurdish, Pashto,

Somali, Tigrinya, and Urdu) and administered by trained (male and female) data collectors

with a mix of cultural and linguistic backgrounds (IOM, 2017).8 FMS only gathers

information from migrants and refugees aged 14 and older.

The survey aims to provide a stratified sample based on nationality, sex, and age, and

be representative of migrants arriving in Europe through the Central and Eastern

Mediterranean route (IOM, 2017). Figure 5 illustrates the main migratory routes across the

Mediterranean: (i) the Central Mediterranean Route refers to the sea journey from Sub-

Saharan Africa to Italy, with Libya being the main point of departure; (ii) the Eastern

Mediterranean Route refers to the sea crossing from Turkey to Greece; (iii) the Western

Mediterranean Route (sea crossing from Morocco to mainland Spain) is not part of the

analysis. More than 99 per cent of migrants who arrived into Europe in 2015 and 2016 using

the Mediterranean routes did so through the routes we analyze. More specifically, 1,030,173

migrants arrived in Europe using the Eastern Mediterranean Route; 335,278 migrants used

the Central Mediterranean Route; 13,400 migrants used the Western Mediterranean Route

(ECFR, 2017; UNHCR, 2017). Migrants who entered the European Union (Bulgaria or

Greece) via Turkey by land or sea then travel through Western Balkan countries — Albania,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia9, Kosovo,

Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia — with the aim of reaching the Schengen area.10

The surveys are conducted at the transit points.11 They are fully anonymous and

voluntary. Respondents are approached by IOM field staff and are informed of the purposes

8 In the case of large groups, the surveys were conducted on a sample of the population. In case of small groups,

the entire population was surveyed. 9 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has officially adopted its new name “the Republic of North

Macedonia” in February, 2019. However, throughout the paper we use the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia or FYR Macedonia, which were originally used in the surveys. 10 In Greece, all surveyed locations were on the mainland and not on the islands, and represent a mix of official

sites or camps managed by the national authorities and IOM premises in Athens. In the case of Balkan countries,

the interviews were conducted both in spontaneous and organized transit points, including in official reception

centers run by national authorities (IOM, 2017). As for Italy, the FMS was conducted in 36 entry and transit

points in Sicily, Calabria and Apulia in 2016 including the 3 of the 4 hotspots operating in the country (Trapani,

Pozzallo and Taranto). The hotspots are first reception facilities to identify and register migrants soon upon

arrival (IOM, 2016). Migrants using the East African Route (sea crossing from Egypt and Libya to mainland

Greece and Italy) might be included in our datasets depending on where they arrived. 11 The share of interviews by survey country in the first three waves is as follows: 24 percent in Italy, 20 percent

in Greece, 19 percent in FYR Macedonia, 18 percent in Croatia, 6 percent in Bulgaria, 5 percent in Hungary, 5

percent in Slovenia, and 3 percent in Serbia.

Page 16: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

14

of the research and of the fact that participation does not influence their legal status in the

country of the interview. The rest of the questions are posed only to those migrants who give

their consent to proceed. IOM also often use data collector from the same nationality as

migrants or at least speaking their language. The response rates were very high.12 Of those

approached in the first two waves, only 2 per cent declined to participate. The share declining

to participate was somewhat higher in the third wave (4 per cent) and fourth wave (6 per

cent).13 This alleviates concerns about selection bias in participating in the surveys.

FMS provides rich information on migrants’ demographic characteristics (age,

gender, educational attainment, and marital status), employment status before migration,

reasons for leaving the place of residence, and intended destination(s). We use three waves of

FMS in our main analyses. The first wave (October 2015 to December 2015) conducted

interviews in Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The second wave of FMS (January 2016 to November 2016) covers Bulgaria, Croatia,

Greece, Hungary, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia. The

third wave of the survey only covers Italy, spanning from June to November 2016. In the raw

data, the three waves of FMS included 21,843 respondents. Unfortunately, we are not able to

include Eritrea in the main analysis as it is not surveyed by Gallup World Polls, and we also

exclude nationalities with less than 100 respondents. Our final sample (with no age

restriction, i.e., 14+) consists of nearly 19,000 observations provided by migrants of 19

different nationalities with at least 100 respondents (i.e., source countries). Furthermore, we

have data from more than 12,000 respondents who were interviewed in Turkey as the fourth

wave from November 2016 to August 2018. In a complementary analysis, we use these data

to understand the self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants with respect to education

and other demographic characteristics into Turkey.

It is important to note that, despite the fast-changing conditions in the field, FMS

provides a good representation of migrant groups. More specifically, in Table 1, we evaluate

the representativeness of FMS data from the first three waves by comparing it with official

Eurostat data on asylum applications in 2015 and 2016. The table includes only those

12 There were no incentives provided for participation. It was on a voluntary basis and migrants could terminate

the interview at any time. However, data collectors provided a clear explanation of the purpose of the survey

before asking for consent and emphasized the fact that it was anonymous. IOM also selected locations for the

survey where migrants stay longer and that provide the right environment in terms of space and confidentiality.

These helped migrants to feel comfortable and respond to the survey. 13 In the first two waves (Eastern Med.), interviewers approached 15,016 migrants on transit and only 286 of

them did not participate the survey; in the third wave (Central Med.), 7,028 migrants were approached and only

261 of them gave no consent; and in the last wave (Turkey) only 730 migrants out of 13,148 did not want to take

part in the survey.

Page 17: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

15

countries that were named as a country of nationality by at least 100 respondents in the FMS

data. Syrians are by far the largest group (25.6 percent in FMS data and 25.5 percent in

Eurostat data), Afghans the second largest group (18.5 percent in FMS data and 12.8 percent

in Eurostat data) and Iraqis the third-largest group (9.3 percent in FMS data and 8.5 percent

in Eurostat data) in both data sets. Overall, the correlation between the shares of the

nationalities in FMS and Eurostat data is remarkably high: 0.98. The share of males is

somewhat higher in FMS data, but the differences are small for most countries. To sum up,

comparisons with Eurostat data do not raise any major concerns about the representativeness

of FMS data, with the caveat that women may have been somewhat less likely to answer the

FMS survey, as suggested by IOM experts based on their field experience (UNICEF, 2017).

4.2. IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees

To investigate self-selection into Germany as the main destination country, we use IAB-

BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees (2016), which is collected as part of the German Socio-

Economic Panel. The dataset provides information on refugees' country of origin,

demographic characteristics, and employment histories and covers about 4,000 adult refugees

in Germany. We focus on refugees who arrived in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and migrated

from major conflict countries with more than 100 respondents (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,

Syria) to make the analysis comparable with the rest of the paper.

4.3. Gallup World Poll and Country Level Characteristics

Our primary data on the source country population come from the 2009-2014 Gallup World

Polls (GWP).14 These nationally representative surveys are fielded every year in over 120

countries and interview approximately 1,000 individuals in each country on a range of topics.

The GWP provides detailed information on individuals’ demographic characteristics (age,

gender, educational attainment, and marital status), labor market outcomes, income, and

migration intentions.

The GWP’s main advantage for our purposes is that the poll allows us to combine the

FMS data with data on the non-migrating population for a broad spectrum of countries.

Specifically, we merge two unique datasets based on 19 source countries reported by at least

14 In the appendix, we show that our results remain qualitatively the same when we use the data on source

population between 2009 and 2011 (i.e. pre-Syrian conflict period).

Page 18: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

16

100 respondents in the first three waves of FMS. We then create a “migrant” indicator

variable, which takes a value of 1 for respondents surveyed in the FMS and zero otherwise.

Using this pseudo-cross-sectional sample, we investigate how refugees and irregular migrants

are self-selected from the source population.15 Importantly, each variable in GWP is

harmonized with the definitions used in FMS to ensure comparability.

To further understand the characteristics of refugees and economic migrants, we use

Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) battle-related deaths dataset and classify the source

countries based on their conflict intensity (Pettersson and Eck, 2018).16 Following the

definitions provided by UCDP, we define: i) major conflict category as countries with 1000

or more battle-related deaths in any of the years between 2009 and 2014 (this category

includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria); ii) minor

conflict category as countries with 25 to 999 battle-related deaths in any of the years between

2009 and 2014 (this category includes Algeria, Egypt, Iran, and Mali); iii) no conflict

category as countries that did not experience a major war or minor conflict in any of the years

between 2009 and 2014 (this category includes Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana,

Guinea, Morocco, and Senegal). It is important to note that: (i) Political Terror Scale (Gibney

et al. 2018) gives us the same classification using the data between 2009 and 2014; (ii) there

is some movement of countries between the categories across years; (iii) using a continuous

measure of the conflict intensity produces qualitatively similar results.17

We also use a number of country characteristics in our analysis. We obtained country-

level unemployment rates and the GINI Index (0-100 range) from the World Bank’s World

Development Indicators database. For destination countries, we use the migrant integration

policy index variable from the MIPEX, which measures migrants’ opportunities to participate

in society. The index uses 167 policy indicators covering 8 policy areas (labor market

mobility, family reunion, education, political participation, long-term residence, access to

nationality, anti-discrimination, and health) to rate countries from 0 to 100, with 100 being

the top score.18 We obtained data on the average duration of asylum procedure from

Eurofound (2016). This variable reports the average number of months passed between the

15 When we restrict our sample to the 25-64 age band, the data relate to people from the following thirteen

countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan,

Senegal, Sudan and Syria. 16 We use the UCDP’s best estimate for battle-related deaths to classify the countries based on their conflict

intensity. 17 These results are not presented here but available upon request. 18 For details of the compilation of the MIPEX, see Huddleston et al. (2015).

Page 19: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

17

submission of the asylum claim and the first decision. For ease of interpretation, we rescale

this variable from 0 to 1, with 1 being the longest duration. Data on waiting duration for labor

market access come from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD, 2016). This variable measures the waiting period, in months, that it takes to obtain a

work permit after successfully claiming asylum. Again, we rescale this variable from 0 to 1,

with 1 being the longest duration.

5. Descriptive Statistics

Tables 2.a and 2.b present descriptive statistics of FMS data (excluding Eritrea and countries

with less than 100 respondents), with respect to when and where the interviews took place

and basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of survey respondents. In Table

2.a, we show the descriptive statistics for the full-sample (i.e., with no age restrictions). In

Table 2.b, we focus on the sample of migrants aged 25 to 64. In Table A.1 in the Appendix,

we provide evidence on how the demographic characteristics of respondents from excluded

source countries (Eritrea and those with less than 100 respondents) compare with the

individuals included in the analysis.

Table 2.a shows descriptive statistics for the main FMS sample without age

restrictions. An overwhelming majority of survey respondents are male (74 percent) with an

average age of 29. 48 percent of the respondents are married, and 17 percent have tertiary

level education.19 About half of the respondents also report to have been employed before

migration.

When we focus on individuals aged 25 to 64 in Table 2.b, we again find that a vast

majority of survey respondents are male (70 percent). There are also notable differences

between the two samples: migrants in this age band are more likely than those in the full-

sample to be married (69 percent), to have tertiary level education (21 percent), and to have

been employed before migration (60 percent). These differences in education levels and

employment status before migration also highlight the importance of focusing on individuals

aged 25 and older when testing our theory. By doing so, we avoid the share of young

respondents mechanically driving results for self-selection with respect to tertiary level

education and employment. When it comes to the reasons for leaving their home country,

19 These figures are in line with those found in Brücker et al. (2016) who show that 13 percent of refugees aged

18 or more have a university degree and 6 percent have a vocational qualification.

Page 20: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

18

migrants cite “conflict or persecution (74 percent)” and “economic reasons (14 percent)” as

the main causes. The shares are almost the same for the full-sample.20 There is a major

gender difference in marital and past employment status: women are more likely to be

married and much less likely to have been employed. The share of Syrians is also

considerably higher among women.

There are some notable differences between the survey waves. First, Syrians,

Afghans, and Iraqis are the most common nationalities in Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 4, but

almost absent in Wave 3. In Wave 3, most migrants come from Africa, with Nigerians and

Guineans being the largest groups. This is expected given that Wave 3 was fielded in Italy,

which is the main arrival point for people fleeing conflict and poverty in Africa. In Wave 4,

Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, and Afghanis constitute more than 90 percent of the sample. Second,

although most migrants are motivated by conflict or persecution in all waves, this motivation

dominates most clearly in Waves 1 and 2. Third, there is huge variation in the level of

education across survey waves: the share of those with tertiary education in the full sample is

36 percent in Wave 1, 20 percent in Wave 2, 6 percent in Wave 3, and 14 percent in Wave 4.

Corresponding patterns prevail if the analysis is restricted to those aged 25 to 64.

Table 2.c shows descriptive statistics for the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees.

As this survey included only adults, it is not surprising that all respondents are somewhat

older and more educated than in the FMS. If restricting the attention to those aged 25 to 64,

the main difference between IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees and the FMS is that the

share of women is clearly higher in Germany, and respondents are on average older. In terms

of education, differences compared with the average if pooling Waves 1 and 2 are small.

In Table 3, we present descriptive characteristics of the source population from the

GWP. Unlike in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c, the gender ratio is balanced. People in source

countries (compared with refugees and irregular migrants) are also older on average, more

likely to be married than those in the FMSs, and less likely to have (completed) tertiary level

education. When differentiating the analysis by gender, employment rates in the age group 25

to 64 are quite similar in FMSs and GWP, and somewhat higher in the IAB-BAMF-SOEP

Survey. These patterns remain qualitatively similar when we use the source population data

between 2009 and 2011 (see Table A.2 in the Appendix). Women are much less likely to be

20 Using IAB-BAMF-SOEP survey, Brücker et al. (2016) report that 70 percent of refugees listed war and

conflict, as the main reason to migrate followed by persecution (44 percent), poor personal living conditions (39

percent), discrimination (38 percent) and fear of forced conscription (36 percent).

Page 21: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

19

employed than men in all data sets, and somewhat less educated than men in FMS and in

GWP.

Table 4 presents the differences in educational attainment for the main source

countries. Apart from Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Senegal, migrants are better educated than

non-migrants, whether analyzing the full population or restricting the attention to those aged

25 to 64. This is in line with the pattern on migrants being generally positively self-selected

in terms of education that Grogger and Hanson (2011) find.

Figure 6 illustrates the reasons for leaving by nationality. We find that more than 90

percent of respondents from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria report

leaving their country due to conflict or persecution. At the other end of the scale, a vast

majority of respondents from Morocco and Algeria cite economic conditions as the main

reasons for leaving their home country. Limited access to basic services (like school and

health care) or lack of food or accommodation was named as the main reason by only 3

percent of respondents. Overall, this suggests that the vast majority of migrants were seeking

refuge from conflict or persecution, although there is a sizable population driven primarily by

economic concerns. Examining the reasons for leaving by nationality delivers similar results.

There are no noteworthy gender- and age-specific differences in reported reasons. Most

origin countries in our sample are predominantly Muslim and low or lower-middle income

nations. Figure A.2 in the appendix illustrates reasons for leaving by nationality among

respondents in Turkey. Compared with Figure 6, the most striking difference is that only 45

percent of respondents from Afghanistan living in Turkey reported that conflict or

persecution was their main reason for emigrating, compared with 89 percent among Afghans

in the first three waves in Europe. The share emigrating due to conflict or persecution is

lower in Turkey also among Iraqis, Somalis, and Syrians, but somewhat higher among

Iranians.

The respondents were also asked their intended destination country. As shown in

Figure 7, Germany was the main destination in the first two waves, chosen by 61 percent of

respondents, followed by France (6 percent), Italy, and Sweden (5 percent each). In wave 3

that was collected in Italy, 61 percent reported an intention to stay in Italy, followed by 8

percent aiming to Germany and 6 percent aiming to France. In wave 4, 63 percent intended to

stay in Turkey, 7 percent aimed to Germany, and 18 percent did not know where to aim. It is

plausible that this reflects the effective closing of the route from Turkey to the European

Union following the March 2018 the agreement that allows the European Union to send

migrants arriving from Turkey to Greece illegally back, in exchange for taking recognized

Page 22: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

20

refugees from Turkey. In terms of our model, the effective closing of migration route from

Turkey to Europe following the March 2018 agreement can be interpreted as an increase in

the probability 𝑠𝑘 of not making it to the intended destination in case of trying to migrate,

with a high share of respondents in Turkey not knowing where to aim further testifying about

this.

Figure 8 shows the reasons for leaving in the first three waves of the FMS, according

to the intended destination country. We find that more than 80 percent of those aiming for

Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Austria had left their country of origin

because of conflict or persecution. This share was below 60 percent among those aiming for

France, Belgium, and Italy, which had, correspondingly, highest shares of economic

migrants. In Figure A.3 in the appendix, among respondents in Turkey, we find that more

than 80 percent of those aiming for Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, United States,

and the United Kingdom had left their country of origin due to conflict or persecution.

6. Empirical Approach

To assess the self-selection of migrants, we estimate a series of multivariate regression

models relating to how refugees and irregular migrants in the FMS differ from the overall

population in GWP. We restrict our attention to those aged 25 to 64 to focus on individuals

most likely to have completed their education, and not yet retired. Our main variables of

interest are age, gender, and level of education. In some of the analyses, we also use predicted

incomes to study how these are related to self-selection into emigration from different

country groups. We proceed by estimating linear probability models for our outcomes for

ease of interpretation, though logistic regression models returned similar patterns. We also

estimate most models separately by the level of conflict in source country and gender. Our

models of self-selection take the form:

(1) Refugee/Migrantic = + 1Xi + β2Cc + i

where Refugee/Migrantic takes a value of 1 if individual i from country c is in the FMS

sample and 0 otherwise. Xi is a vector of demographic variables that includes: age group

dummies (25-34, 35-44, 45-54); education dummies (tertiary education, secondary

education); dummy variable indicating the labor market status before migration (employed);

a dummy variable indicating the marital status (married, divorced, widowed). To account for

Page 23: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

21

other unobservable characteristics, we include a full set of source country (Cc) dummies,

which control for all time-invariant variation caused by factors that vary cross-nationally.

We use data for the source population from Gallup World Polls between 2009 and

2014. However, the results are robust to using data between 2009 and 2011 (pre-Syrian

conflict period). Note that in equation (1) the relevant reference category is composed of

individuals who are in the Gallup World Poll. We estimate standard errors robust to

heteroscedasticity.

To investigate the self-selection of refugees and migrants with respect to income, we

use Gallup data that include household income and individual income. Specifically, we first

estimate within-country Mincer regressions controlling for the level of education,

employment status, gender, age, and marital status based on the migrants’ home countries.

We then use these estimates to predict household income and personal income for those

surveyed in the FMS and use these predicted incomes to gain further insights into how

migrants from different country groups are self-selected with respect to their earnings

potential.

After analyzing self-selection into emigration, we analyze sorting into different

intended destinations by using FMS data only. Our models of sorting take the form:

(2) OUTCOMEc = + 1Xi + + β2Cc + i

where OUTCOMEc is one of the country-level indicators: (i) Gini coefficient; (ii) country-

level unemployment; (iii) migrant integration policy index; (iv) average duration of asylum

procedure; (v) average waiting duration for labor market access; (vi) social expenditure as a

percentage of GDP. In addition, we use country-level estimates for returns to education as an

outcome (i.e., by estimating within-country Mincer equations in GWP). All other variables

are as described above.

7. Self-selection of Refugees and Irregular Migrants into Europe

This section presents two sets of results. We first show self-selection of refugees and

irregular migrants with respect to education and other demographic characteristics. Second,

we analyze the self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants according to their predicted

earnings.

Page 24: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

22

7.1. Self-selection of Refugees and Irregular Migrants with respect to Demographic

Characteristics

In this subsection, we start testing our theoretical predictions - based on our extension of the

Roy-Borjas model - to understand how the distribution of education among refugees and

irregular migrants compares with that among non-migrants. We present this evidence in

Table 5 for males and females together, in Table 6 for males only, and in Table 7 for females

only, restricting the analysis of migrants to the first three waves. The columns are structured

as follows: all countries (column 1); major conflict countries (column 2); minor or no conflict

countries (column 3). As mentioned above, we restrict attention to individuals aged 25 to 64

to focus on individuals most likely to have completed their education and not yet retired.

In column 1 of Table 5, we find that educated people are significantly more likely to

migrate when we analyze all countries together. The results in column 2 and 3 suggest that

the probability of emigration increases in tertiary education in both country groups, but

decreases in secondary education in countries with a minor or no conflict.21 Notably, refugees

and irregular migrants escaping major conflicts tend to be highly educated relative to the

national average in their country of origin. These results are in line with our theoretical

predictions suggesting that if the risk of being a victim of conflict or persecution increases,

the probability of emigration becomes eventually increasing in human capital even if returns

to human capital would be higher in the country of origin in the absence of conflict or

persecution. An additional mechanism outside our model is that better-educated individuals

would find it easier to finance their trip, while liquidity constraints would prevent the least

educated people from migrating. Turning to other covariates, we find that the probability of

emigration is higher for men, younger people, and singles.

Tables 6 and 7 present corresponding analyses separately for men and women. The

probability of emigration increases in both secondary and tertiary education for both men and

women in countries suffering from a major conflict. In countries with minor or no conflict,

men with secondary education are somewhat less likely to emigrate than men with less than

secondary education, while the effect of tertiary education is statistically insignificant. This is

intuitive, as African and Asian countries have much wider income differences than European

21 The results hold also if excluding Iran, which has by far the highest share of tertiary educated emigrants.

Page 25: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

23

countries. More positive self-selection of migrants from major conflict countries is in line

with our model.

Table 7 shows that in countries with minor or no conflict women with tertiary

education are significantly more likely to emigrate than women with less than secondary

education, while women with a secondary education do not differ from women with less than

a secondary education in their probability of emigration. At first sight, positive self-selection

of women from minor or no conflict countries with respect to their education may appear to

contradict our model. However, it is important to note that gender discrimination is a major

problem in most of Africa and Asia, and in many countries, women’s labor market

opportunities are severely restricted. If these restrictions disproportionately hit tertiary-

educated women, then they may actually enjoy a higher expected return to their human

capital in Europe, explaining an opposite selection pattern to that of men. Furthermore, the

fact that female migrants are more strongly positively self-selected from major conflict

countries than from minor or no conflict countries is in line with what our theory predicts.

We also find that men who were employed before they migrated are more likely to

emigrate from countries suffering from major conflict but less likely to emigrate from

countries with minor or no conflict, again in line with emigration from no or low conflict

countries being motivated by lack of economic opportunities. The opposite is found for

women: those who were in employment before migration are less likely to emigrate from

countries suffering from major conflict but are more likely to emigrate from countries with

minor or no conflict.22

We establish a link between self-selection among refugees and irregular migrants and

their main motivation to emigrate in Table 8. More specifically, our outcome variable is

reason to migrate: conflict/persecution, which is equal to 1 for respondents who cite conflict

or persecution as the main reason to migrate and 0 for other respondents who cite other

reasons (economic reasons, limited access to amenities and natural disasters and other

reasons) in the Flow Monitoring Surveys. The columns are structured as follows: all

22 Given that employment and education may be strongly correlated, we analyzed the effects of employment and

demographic controls separately according to the level of education (results available upon request). The results

for men are driven by those with a secondary education. When analyzing women, a more complex picture

arises. Being employed reduces the probability of emigrating from major conflict countries for women with a

primary or secondary education, but has no effect on the probability of emigration from minor conflict

countries. Among women with a tertiary education, being employed has no effect on the probability of

emigration from major conflict countries, but increases the probability of emigration from minor or no conflict

countries. This finding may reflect highly educated women’s relatively bad labor market opportunities to which

those women who choose to pursue employment react more strongly.

Page 26: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

24

respondents (column 1); males (column 2); females (column 3). We again restrict our

attention to individuals aged 25 to 64.

In column 1 of Table 8, we find that refugees who escaped conflict or persecution are

significantly more likely to have secondary and tertiary level education compared with those

who cite other reasons for leaving their countries. The results in columns 2 and 3 suggest that

this pattern applies to both men and women. These results are in line with our theory: higher

risks related to remaining in the country of origin can result in positive self-selection of

migrants, even if self-selection in the absence of conflict or persecution would be negative.

In Table 9, we complement our analysis by investigating the self-selection of refugees

(who escaped major conflict countries) into Germany, which is the main destination country.

Consistent with our main results, we find strong positive self-selection with respect to

education. Unlike in FMS, gender composition of refugees who have made it into Germany is

relatively balanced.

7.2. Self-selection with respect to Predicted Income

In Table 10, we use predicted individual pre-migration income as the only explanatory

variable to predict emigration of those aged 25 to 64, in addition to country fixed effects.

Specifically, we obtain predicted individual income by estimating within-country Mincer

regressions which control for the level of education, employment status, gender, age, and

marital status, separately for each country or origin. We then use the estimated coefficients to

calculate predicted income for both migrants and non-migrants.

Note that our models in Table 10 do not include individual covariates again as these

are all strongly correlated with predicted income. We find that predicted log income strongly

increases the probability of emigration from all country groups. The effect of predicted

income is highest for migrants from countries suffering a major conflict, in line with our

theoretical predictions. Interestingly, migrants from countries with minor or no conflict are

also positively self-selected when using all migrants. If the attention is restricted to single

people, the effect of predicted income turns negative for men from countries with minor or no

conflict. The patterns without restriction to singles also remain qualitatively similar when

using predicted household income.23

A potential concern related to our findings is that self-selection, according to

predicted earnings, could reflect borrowing constraints, with migrants from countries with

23 These results are not reported but available upon request.

Page 27: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

25

higher income being more likely to be able to emigrate. Although we do not exclude this

possibility, weak positive self-selection among migrants from countries with minor or no

conflict supports the idea that borrowing constraints cannot be the main explanatory factor. In

other words, if it would be about borrowing constraints and these being less binding for

highly educated, then we would observe positive self-selection also from minor or no conflict

countries. To investigate this further, we analyzed self-selection separately from Syria,

Afghanistan, and Iraq, and ran the regressions separately for men and women. These results

also confirm that refugees and irregular migrants are positively self-selected from main

sending countries.24 As these countries all suffer major conflict, the finding of positive self-

selection in terms of earnings potential is in line with our theoretical predictions.

Borjas, Kauppinen, and Poutvaara (2019) showed that the Roy model has more

precise predictions about the self-selection of migrants than previously realized. The same

conditions that result in positive or negative selection in terms of expected earnings also

imply a stochastic dominance relationship between the earnings distributions of migrants and

non-migrants. As the FMS did not ask respondents about their income, we can only test self-

selection with respect to predicted incomes. We use predicted incomes for both migrants and

non-migrants to focus on both groups’ income arising from observable characteristics. We

restrict the attention to single persons to minimize any confounding factors related to marital

status.

Figures 9 and 10 show migrants’ and non-migrants’ cumulative distribution functions

(CDFs) of predicted income in the country of origin for major conflict countries and for

countries with minor or no conflict (corresponding figures for migrants from all countries

together are shown in Figure A.1 in the appendix). We find that both male and female

migrants from major conflict countries are positively self-selected in terms of their predicted

income. For countries with minor or no conflict, migrant and non-migrant men do not differ

in terms of their income distribution. Migrating women, instead, are positively self-selected

in terms of their income. This could reflect single women facing more difficulties in

financing the journey than single men, resulting in self-selection from the upper part of

earnings distribution even when relative returns to skills in Europe are lower than in the

origin countries.

Figure 11 compares CDF of refugees who migrate due to conflict or persecution with

non-migrants’ CDF, and Figure 12 makes a corresponding comparison between irregular

24 These results are not reported but available upon request.

Page 28: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

26

migrants whose main reason to emigrate was not conflict or persecution and non-migrants.

Male and female refugees and female irregular migrants are positively self-selected with

respect to their income. Male irregular migrants, instead, do not differ much from non-

migrants. The pattern that male refugees are more strongly positively self-selected than male

irregular migrants is in line with what our theory predicts. The absence of such a difference

among women is surprising and explaining it is an important topic for future research; one

possible explanation could be among the high-skilled, women face much more severe

difficulties in finding a job corresponding to their qualifications in the origin countries,

resulting in the expected returns to human capital for women being actually lower there than

in Europe. It should be noted that women are a small minority among refugees and irregular

migrants. Among single refugees covered in Figure 11, 7 percent are women and among

single irregular migrants in Figure 12, 6 percent. Unlike in figure 12, also men who emigrated

for other reasons are positively self-selected.

8. Sorting of Refugees and Irregular Migrants

We next analyze the sorting of refugees and irregular migrants into different intended

destination countries. Our main question is whether refugees and irregular migrants with

tertiary level education (or more) sort themselves into more inegalitarian countries and

whether the choice of the destination country for refugees and irregular migrants is shaped by

macro-level characteristics. Table 11 investigates how migrants’ sorting according to their

education, differs between major conflict countries and countries without a major conflict. In

this table, we only focus on waves 1, 2, and 3 in the FMS sample, and our outcome variable

is the Gini coefficient of the intended destination country. When studying all destination

countries, those with tertiary education are more likely to choose more unequal countries, and

those with secondary education are more likely to choose more equal countries than those

below secondary education. This pattern also holds for those who emigrate from major

conflict countries. When it comes to countries with minor or no conflict, the sorting pattern of

those with tertiary education is strongly in line with the Roy-Borjas model: they are much

more likely to aim for more unequal countries. Surprisingly, migrants with secondary

education from countries with conflict are less likely to sort into more unequal countries,

compared with those with only primary education. An important caveat is that these models

implicitly assume that skills are sufficiently transferable across countries. These findings also

Page 29: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

27

do not imply causality, as other factors (such as culture and institutions) may affect the choice

of destination and be linked to a person’s education. Nonetheless, our findings indicate that

education may play an important role when refugees and irregular migrants choose their

destination.

Table 12 provides suggestive evidence on other country-specific factors that might

influence migrants’ choice of destination. As with the previous analysis, the sample is

restricted to respondents covered by waves 1, 2, and 3 in the FMS surveys (ages 25 to 64),

while outcome variables represent various characteristics of the intended destination country

of each respondent. However, unlike in previous tables, we now report the estimates using

migrants with tertiary education as a reference category. This helps us to highlight the

country-level characteristics that are more important for low-skilled migrants.

Migrants who are educated to primary and secondary level are more likely to head for

countries that have more comprehensive migrant integration policies. The nature of

integration policies is captured by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), which

ranges from 0 to 100 and is based on 167 policy indicators covering the following eight

policy areas: labor market mobility, reunification of families, education, political

participation, long-term residence, access to nationality, measures tackling discrimination,

and health.

Refugees and irregular migrants who are educated to primary and secondary level are

also more likely to choose destination countries where asylum applications are considered

faster and where work permit applications, once asylum has been granted, take less time to

process. More generous social safety nets make a destination country more attractive for

migrants with primary and secondary education. Migrants who are educated to primary and

secondary level are also more likely to choose countries that have lower unemployment rates

and GDP per capita. In other words, refugees and irregular migrants coming to Europe

respond to incentives at all stages of the migration process. This is in line with the Borjas

(1999) finding that immigrants who receive welfare benefits in the United States tend to be

more concentrated in states with generous benefits than natives or immigrants who do not

receive welfare.

Page 30: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

28

9. The Role of Border Controls

The refugee crisis was catapulted to the top of the European policy agenda following

Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to Syrian refugees in August 2015.

Subsequently, several other policy changes, mostly tightening border controls, significantly

reduced or redirected the numbers of refugees and irregular migrants to affected countries. In

this section, we analyze the effect of such policies on FMS respondents’ intended destination

country, using the information on the interview date. Did the policies change the intended

destinations and, if so, how? Alternatively, it could be that the policy changes would have

relatively little effect on what the intended destinations were, and would simply change the

timing and intended route of entry.

We mainly focus on the major border policy changes over the sample period of FMS

(October 2015-November 2016). In particular, we identified five important policy changes:

(i) Austria imposes quota refers to a dummy variable that is equal to one, if interviews were

conducted after 19th February 2016, when Austria imposed a quota of a maximum of 80

refugees or irregular migrants, and a maximum of 3,200 people to travel through Austria per

day; (ii) the Austria quota announcement is equal to one for interview dates after Austria

announced this quota on 20th January 2016; (iii) Hungary border closing is equal to one if

the interview took place after Hungary closed its border on 16th October 2015; (iv) Slovenia

and FYR Macedonia border tightening refers to the date on which FYR Macedonia closed its

border with Greece and Slovenia set stricter border controls, and it is equal to one if the

interview was conducted after 9th March 2016. Sweden border control is equal to one, if

interviews took place after 11th November 2015. In this analysis, we use the first two waves

of FMS since the waves 3 and 4 were conducted after November 2016.

Table 13 reports the coefficients of border policy dummies listed above while

controlling for origin and survey country fixed effects as well as individual characteristics.

The outcomes across the columns are as follows: the intended destination is Germany

(column 1); the intended destination is Italy (column 2); the intended destination is France

(column 3); the intended destination is Austria (column 4), and intended destination is United

Kingdom (column 5).

The results suggest that border policies significantly affected the intended destinations

of refugees and irregular migrants. Results in Column 1 suggest that while Austria quota

announcement and Sweden border controls increased the likelihood of stating “Germany” as

an intended destination country, Slovenia and FYR Macedonia border tightening significantly

Page 31: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

29

reduced migration intentions to Germany. Moving to Column 2, we find that both the

introduction of the refugee quota by Austria and Slovenia and FYR Macedonia border

tightening significantly increased migration intentions to Italy. Focusing on France (Column

3) and the UK (Column 6), we find that Slovenia and FYR Macedonia border tightening is

the only policy that significantly affected (positively) the sorting patterns of refugees and

irregular migrants.

Column 4 presents results for Sweden. We find that Sweden’s border controls and

Austria’s quota policies significantly reduced the migration intentions to Sweden. Lastly, in

Column 5, we focus on sorting to Austria. The results suggest that migrants are significantly

more likely to aim for Austria after the quota announcement. This is in line with the intuition

that migrants wanted to reach Austria before they started imposing quotas on 19th February

2016. However, once Austria limits the number of refugees accepted in the country, the

likelihood of stating Austria as a destination country falls.

In results not reported, we also considered heterogeneity across several other

dimensions and found weaker evidence of heterogeneity in the role of the border controls by

age, education, or source country conflict intensity. Notably, we find stronger effects for men,

which may be explained by traditional gender roles. Overall, these results provide suggestive

evidence that refugees and irregular migrants are mostly well-informed about the border

policy changes, and there is a strong need for deeper cooperation between destination

countries (Hatton 2015).

10. Self-selection of Refugees and Irregular Migrants into Turkey

In Table 14, we investigate the self-selection of migrants with respect to education and other

demographic characteristics into Turkey. We present this evidence only for those who left

from major conflict countries (that is, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria) as we do not

have enough number of observations for migrants from minor or no conflict countries. We

restrict attention to individuals aged 25 to 64 and the analysis of migrants to the last wave

from Turkey. The columns are structured as follows: both genders (column 1); males only (in

column 2); females (in column 3).

In Table 14, we find that the probability of emigration increases in tertiary education

but decreases with secondary. This pattern remains the same when we analyze men and

women separately in Columns 2 and 3. Table A.6 shows that refugees are more strongly

Page 32: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

30

positively self-selected than irregular migrants, also when analyzing migrants in Turkey.

Table A.7 compares the share of migrants aged 25 to 64 with tertiary education from

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria in waves 1, 2, and 4; wave 3 is omitted due to a small

number of observations from these countries. In all nationalities, the share of those with

tertiary education is higher among migrants who made it to European transit countries than

among migrants staying in Turkey. This pattern could be explained by those with tertiary

education having more skills and money that help them to organize and pay for the trip to

Europe; those with less resources are more likely to have to stay on Turkey. Furthermore,

when it comes to Syrian migrants, it could be that those with higher education left the country

earlier, and were, therefore, more likely to reach Europe before the agreement between the

European Union and Turkey that involved returning unauthorized migrants from European

transit countries back to Turkey.

Figures A.4 and A.5 show that also when analyzing migrants in Turkey, those who

emigrated due to conflict or persecution are more positively self-selected with respect to

predicted income than those who emigrated for other reasons. Taken together, our findings

suggest that migrants in Turkey are less educated than migrants who have made it to Europe.

11. Conclusion

Using Flow Monitoring Surveys and Gallup World Polls, we analyzed the main reasons to

emigrate and self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants through the so-called the

Central and Eastern Mediterranean Routes in 2015 and 2016. We found that 77 percent of

respondents were refugees in the sense of fleeing war, conflict or persecution, 21 percent

were motivated by economic reasons, including the lack of basic necessities, and 2 percent

had left because of natural disasters or other reasons. Most of the respondents were from

Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, followed by Nigeria, Pakistan, Morocco, and Iran. Refugees and

irregular migrants are more likely to be single, male, and young, with vast cross-country

variation in the main motivation to migrate.

Our results show that refugees are more educated than irregular migrants whose main reason

to emigrate is not conflict or persecution. There are, however, important gender differences.

While both men and women emigrating from countries with major conflict are positively

self-selected with respect to their education, self-selection patterns between men and women

Page 33: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

31

are starkly different from countries with no or minor conflict, or if analyzing those whose

main motivation to emigrate was not conflict or persecution. Men from minor or no conflict

countries, as well as men whose main motivation to emigrate was not conflict or persecution,

instead, do not differ much from non-migrants. Women from minor or no conflict countries,

as well as women whose main motivation to emigrate was not conflict or persecution, are

more educated than non-migrants. Our conjecture is that women’s positive self-selection in

terms of education also from countries with no or minor conflict arises because of gender

discrimination that depresses especially tertiary-educated women’s job opportunities. We also

find that those with lower levels of education are relatively more likely to head for countries

with lower unemployment rates, better migrant integration policies, faster asylum processes,

easier access to the labor market for people who have successfully claimed asylum, and

stronger social safety nets.

Our detailed analysis of socio-demographic characteristics and background of refugees and

irregular migrants points to several policy implications. While the vast majority of them leave

their country in order to escape conflict, the main motivation of a significant number of

migrants from countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Pakistan is a desire to seek out

better economic opportunities abroad. While most of these migrants may ultimately be denied

asylum, they can slow down asylum application procedures. This may, in turn, undermine

popular support for a well-managed and fair asylum system (Hatton, 2017). Ageing European

economies could consider tackling this problem by increasing legal employment

opportunities for African citizens on a selective basis, depending on local needs. Such

initiatives could form part of a broader strategy aimed at containing illegal migration to

Europe (MEDAM, 2018).

Moreover, policies that support refugees’ and migrants’ integration into the labor market

need to be tailored to their skills (World Bank, 2018). Migrants escaping major conflicts

(such as the fighting in Syria) may well benefit from receiving early access to language

courses and other basic training while waiting for decisions on their asylum applications.

Battisti et al. (forthcoming) show that the labor market outcomes of certain groups of

refugees can be improved though a basic job search assistance program. Prompt access to

employment will also help migrants to integrate better into society (OECD, 2018). Moreover,

offering labor market access to asylum seekers and fostering social integration are able to

mitigate the detrimental effect of past conflict exposure on criminality (Couttenier et al.

Page 34: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

32

2016). All of these aspects are particularly important in terms of promoting the integration of

migrants and helping a country to make society more inclusive for everyone.

References

Abramitzky, R. and Boustan, L. (2017). Immigration in American Economic History. Journal

of Economic Literature 55(4): 1311-45.

Abramitzky, R., Boustan, L. and Eriksson, K. (2012). Europe’s Tired, Poor, Huddled Masses:

Self-selection and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration. American Economic

Review 102(5): 1832–56.

Bandiera, O., Rasul, I., & Viarengo, M. (2013). The Making of Modern America: Migratory

Flows in the Age of Mass Migration. Journal of Development Economics 102: 23-47.

Battisti, M., Giesing, Y. and Laurentsyeva N. (forthcoming). Can Job Search Assistance

Improve the Labour Market Integration of Refugees? Labour Economics.

Beine, M. and Parsons, C. (2015). Climatic Factors as Determinants of International

Migration. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 117: 723-767.

Belot, M. V., and Hatton, T. J. (2012). Immigrant Selection in the OECD. The Scandinavian

Journal of Economics 114(4): 1105-1128.

Birgier, D. P. Lundh, C., Haberfeld, Y. and Elldér, E. (2018). Self-Selection and Host

Country Context in the Economic Assimilation of Political Refugees in the United States,

Sweden, and Israel. International Migration Review 52(2): 524–558.

Borjas, G.J. (1987). Self-selection and the Earnings of Immigrants. American Economic

Review 77: 531-53.

Borjas, G.J., Kauppinen, I. and Poutvaara, P. (2019). Self‐Selection of Emigrants: Theory and

Evidence on Stochastic Dominance in Observable and Unobservable Characteristics.

Economic Journal 129: 143–171.

Brücker, H., Rother, N., Schupp, J., von Gostomski, C.B., Böhm, A., Fendel, T., Friedrich,

M., Giesselmann, M., Kosyakova, Y., Kroh, M., Kühne, S., Liebau, E., Richter, D., Romiti,

A., Schacht, D., Scheible, J.A., Schmelzer, P., Siegert, M., Sirries, S., Trübswetter, P., and

Page 35: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

33

Vallizadeh, E. (2016). Forced Migration, Arrival in Germany, and First Steps toward

Integration. In Britzke, J., and Schupp, J. (Eds.), SOEP Wave Report 2016, p. 149-164.

Cattaneo, C. and Peri, G. (2016). The Migration Response to Increasing Temperatures.

Journal of Development Economics 122: 127-146.

Chin, A. and Cortes, K.E. (2015). The Refugee/Asylum Seeker. In Handbook of the

Economics of International Migration, Volume 1, Edited by Chiswick, B.R. and Miller, P.W.

Pages 585-658.

Chiquiar, D. and Hanson, G.H. (2005). International Migration, Self-selection, and the

Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States. Journal of Political

Economy 113(2): 239–281.

Cohen, Y. (2007). Self-Selection and Earnings Assimilation: Immigrants from the Former

Soviet Union in Israel and the United States. Demography 44(3): 649–668.

Couttenier, M., Preotu, V., Rohner, D., & Thoenig, M. (2016). The Violent Legacy of

Victimization: Post-conflict Evidence on Asylum Seekers, Crimes and Public Policy in

Switzerland. CEPR Working Paper, 11079.

Dinas, E., Matakos, K., Xefteris, D., & Hangartner, D. (2019). Waking Up the Golden Dawn:

Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Increase Support for Extreme-Right Parties? Political

Analysis 27: 244-254.

Docquier, F., Lowell, B.L. and Marfouk, A. (2009). A Gendered Assessment of Highly

Skilled Emigration. Population and Development Review 35: 297–321.

Dustmann, C., Fasani, F., Frattini, T., Minale, L. and Schönberg, U. (2017). On the

Economics and Politics of Refugee Migration. Economic Policy 32(91): 497-550.

Dustmann, C., Vasiljeva, K., and Damm, A.P. (forthcoming). Refugee Migration and

Electoral Outcomes. The Review of Economic Studies.

ECFR (2017). The Mediterranean and Migration: Postcards from a Crisis. Available here:

https://www.ecfr.eu/specials/mapping_migration#

Edo, A., Giesing, Y., Öztunc, J., and Poutvaara, P. (2019). Immigration and Electoral Support

for the Far-Left and the Far-Right. European Economic Review 115: 99-143.

Page 36: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

34

Eurofound (2016). Approaches to the Labour Market Integration of Refugees and Asylum

Seekers. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Fernandez-Huertas Moraga, J. (2011). New Evidence on Emigrant Selection. Review of

Economics and Statistics 93(1): 72–96.

Gibney, M., Cornett L., Wood R., Haschke P., Arnon D., and Pisanò A. (2018). The Political

Terror Scale 1976-2017. Available here:

http://www.politicalterrorscale.org

Grogger, J., and Hanson, G.H. (2011). Income Maximization and the Selection and Sorting of

International Migrants. Journal of Development Economics 95: 42-57.

Guichard, L. (2017). Self-selection of Refugees. Manuscript, IAB.

Halla, M., Wagner, A. F., and Zweimüller, J. (2017). Immigration and Voting for the Far

Right. Journal of the European Economic Association 15: 1341–1385.

Hatton, T. J., and Williamson, J. G. (1998). The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and

Economic Impact. Oxford University Press.

Hatton, T. J. (2015). Asylum Policy in the EU: the Case for Deeper Integration. CESifo

Economic Studies 61(3-4): 605-637.

Hatton, T. J. (2016). Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Policy in OECD Countries. American

Economic Review 106(5): 441-45.

Hatton, T.J. (2017). Refugees and Asylum Seekers, the Crisis in Europe and the Future of

Policy. Economic Policy 32(91): 447-496.

Hornung, E. (2014). Immigration and the Diffusion of Technology: The Huguenot Diaspora

in Prussia. American Economic Review 104(1): 84-122.

Huddleston, T., Bilgili, Ö., Joki, A.L. and Vankova, Z. (2015). Migrant Integration Policy

Index 2015. Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, Migration Policy Group.

IOM (2016). Mixed Migration Flows in the Mediterranean and Beyond. Available here:

http://migration.iom.int/docs/Analysis_Flow_Monitoring_and_Human_Trafficking_Surveys_

in_the_Mediterranean_and_Beyond_8_DECEMBER_2016.pdf

Page 37: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

35

IOM (2017). Mixed Migration Flows in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond. Available

here:

http://migration.iom.int/docs/Analysis_Flow_Monitoring_Surveys_in_the_Mediterranean_an

d_Beyond_11_April_2017.pdf

Mayda, A. (2010). International Migration: A Panel Data Analysis of the Determinants of

Bilateral Flows. Journal of Population Economics 23: 1249–1274.

MEDAM (2018). Flexible Solidarity: A Comprehensive Strategy for Asylum and

Immigration in the EU – 2018 MEDAM Assessment Report on Asylum and Migration

Policies in Europe, Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration, Kiel.

Moser, P., Voena, A. and Waldinger, F. (2014). German-Jewish Émigrés and U.S. Invention.

American Economic Review 104(10): 3222-3255.

OECD (2016). Making Integration Work: Refugees and others in need of protection, OECD

Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2018). Engaging with Employers in the Hiring of Refugees, Paris.

Otto, A.H. and Steinhardt, M.F. (2014). Immigration and Election Outcomes: Evidence from

City Districts in Hamburg. Regional Science and Urban Economics 45: 67–79.

Parey, M., Ruhose, J., Waldinger, F. and Netz, N. (2017). The Selection of High-skilled

Emigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics 99(5): 776-792.

Pettersson, T. and Eck, K. (2018). Organized Violence, 1989-2017. Journal of Peace

Research 55(4): 535-547.

Roy, A.D. (1951). Some Thoughts on the Distribution of Earnings. Oxford Economic Papers

3(2): 135-146.

UNHCR (1967). Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Available here:

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

UNHCR (2008). Challenges of Irregular Migration: Addressing Mixed Migration Flows.

Available here: www.unhcr.org/49e479c911.pdf

UNHCR (2017). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016. Available here:

http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf

UNICEF (2017). Harrowing Journeys. Available here:

https://data.unicef.org/resources/harrowing-journeys/

Page 38: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

36

UNHCR (2018). See and Land Arrivals Monthly. Available here:

https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

Waldinger, F. (2010). Quality Matters: The Expulsion of Professors and the Consequences

for Ph.D. Student Outcomes in Nazi Germany. Journal of Political Economy 118 (4): 787-

831.

World Bank (2018). Asylum Seekers in the European Union: Building Evidence to Inform

Policy Making, Washington, D.C.

Page 39: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

37

Figure 1: Main countries of origin of refugees and main countries of asylum in 2016

Source: Eurostat, UNHCR and authors’ calculations.

Figure 2: Sea and land arrivals to Europe, monthly

Source: UNHCR and authors’ calculations.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Syr

ia

Afg

ha

nis

tan

So

uth

Su

da

n

So

ma

lia

Su

da

n

De

m.

Re

p. C

on

go

Mya

nm

ar

Eri

tre

a

Vie

tna

m

Ira

q

Tu

rke

y

Pa

kis

tan

Le

ba

no

n

Ira

n

Uga

nd

a

Eth

iop

ia

Jord

an

Ge

rma

ny

De

m.R

ep

. C

on

go

Ke

nya

TOP 10 countries of refugees 2016 TOP 10 countries of asylum 2016

Millio

ns

Recognized refugees (based on origin) Recognized refugees (based on asylum)

Refugees (pending cases based on origin) Refugees (pending cases based on asylum)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Jan

ua

ry,

20

15

Fe

bru

ary

, 2

01

5

Ma

rch

, 2

01

5

Ap

ril, 2

01

5

Ma

y, 2

01

5

Jun

e, 2

01

5

July

, 2

01

5

Au

gu

st,

20

15

Se

pte

mb

er,

20

15

Octo

be

r, 2

01

5

No

ve

mb

er,

20

15

De

ce

mb

er,

20

15

Jan

ua

ry,

20

16

Fe

bru

ary

, 2

01

6

Ma

rch

, 2

01

6

Ap

ril, 2

01

6

Ma

y, 2

01

6

Jun

e, 2

01

6

July

, 2

01

6

Au

gu

st,

20

16

Se

pte

mb

er,

20

16

Octo

be

r, 2

01

6

No

ve

mb

er,

20

16

De

ce

mb

er,

20

16

Jan

ua

ry,

20

17

Fe

bru

ary

, 2

01

7

Ma

rch

, 2

01

7

Ap

ril, 2

01

7

Ma

y, 2

01

7

Jun

e, 2

01

7

July

, 2

01

7

Au

gu

st,

20

17

Se

pte

mb

er,

20

17

Octo

be

r, 2

01

7

No

ve

mb

er,

20

17

De

ce

mb

er,

20

17

Page 40: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

38

Figure 3: Actual and predicted population development (medium fertility variant)

Source: United Nations World Population Prospects, the 2017 Revision.

Figure 4: GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in main origin and destination countries

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

To

tal p

op

ula

tio

n i

n m

illio

ns

Africa Asia Europe Rest of the world

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

2015 GDP per capita, PPP (current international $)

Source: The World Fact Book. Note: GDP per capita is depicted in purchasing power parity in

2015 for 10 largest origin countries in the FMS, and for France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and

Turkey.

Page 41: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

39

Figure 5: Mediterranean Sea routes and main land routes

Source: IOM and authors’ calculations. The map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries do not

imply official endorsement or acceptance by EBRD or IOM.

Figure 6: Reasons to emigrate by origin country

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (2015-16) and authors’ calculations.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Syr

ia

Eri

tre

a

Su

da

n

Ira

q

So

ma

lia

Afg

ha

nis

tan

Lib

ya

Ma

li

Nig

eri

a

te d

'Ivo

ire

Ca

me

roo

n

Gu

ine

a

Se

ne

ga

l

Ira

n

Gh

an

a

Ba

ngla

de

sh

Pa

kis

tan

Egyp

t

Alg

eri

a

Mo

rocco

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

Conflict or persecution Limited access to amenities

Natural disasters/other reasons Economic reasons

Page 42: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

40

Figure 7: Intended destination country, age 14+

Waves 1 and 2

Wave 3 (Italy)

Wave 4 (Turkey)

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (2015-16) and authors’ calculations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ge

rma

ny

Fra

nce

Ita

ly

Sw

ed

en

Au

str

ia

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

UK

Be

lgiu

m

De

nm

ark

No

rwa

y

Oth

ers

Un

kn

ow

nPe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ita

ly

Ge

rma

ny

Fra

nce

UK

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Sw

ed

en

No

rwa

y

Oth

ers

Un

kn

ow

n

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tu

rke

y

Ge

rma

ny

Ca

na

da

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Sw

ed

en

UK

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Fra

nce

Be

lgiu

m

Au

str

ia

No

rwa

y

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Oth

ers

Un

kn

ow

nPe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

Page 43: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

41

Figure 8: Reasons to emigrate by intended destination country

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (2015-16) and authors’ calculations.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

Conflict or persecution Limited access to amenities

Natural disasters/other reasons Economic reasons

Page 44: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

42

Figure 9: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, major conflict countries and by gender

Page 45: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

43

Figure 10: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, minor or no conflict countries and by gender

Page 46: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

44

Figure 11: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, reason to migrate: conflict/persecution

Page 47: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

45

Figure 12: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, reason to migrate: others (i.e. all but conflict/persecution)

Page 48: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

46

Table 1: Comparison of FMS and Eurostat data by nationality

Nationality Number of observations

from FMS

Share Share of Males

FMS Eurostat FMS Eurostat

Syria 5562 0.256 0.255 0.719 0.674

Afghanistan 4026 0.185 0.128 0.866 0.765

Iraq 2028 0.093 0.085 0.803 0.681

Nigeria 1223 0.056 0.031 0.729 0.698

Pakistan 1056 0.049 0.036 0.985 0.933

Eritrea 971 0.045 0.040 0.778 0.705

Morocco 817 0.038 0.007 0.902 0.896

Iran 721 0.033 0.024 0.770 0.711

Guinea 553 0.025 0.008 0.955 0.790

Bangladesh 418 0.019 0.014 0.995 0.940

Senegal 400 0.018 0.008 0.983 0.939

Mali 323 0.015 0.009 0.954 0.936

Sudan 317 0.015 0.009 0.962 0.916

Somalia 285 0.013 0.019 0.677 0.678

Côte d'Ivoire 284 0.013 0.006 0.852 0.806

Algeria 246 0.011 0.008 0.967 0.888

Egypt 237 0.011 0.004 0.987 0.830

Ghana 215 0.010 0.006 0.986 0.882

Cameroon 165 0.008 0.003 0.812 0.675

Libya 108 0.005 0.004 0.935 0.758

Correlation: 0.978*** Correlation: 0.875***

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Eurostat, 2015 and 2016. Notes: Eurostat data set

contains information on the number of asylum applications by nationality. The table only includes

countries, which at least 100 respondents in the FMS named as their nationality. Eritrea is not included

in the analysis as it is not surveyed by Gallup World Polls.

* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%.

Page 49: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

47

Table 2.a: Descriptive characteristics from Flow Monitoring Survey (all ages)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Variables Full sample Males Females Wave 1

(10/2015 - 12/2015)

Wave 2

(01/2016 - 11/2016)

Wave 3

(06/2016 - 11/2016)

Wave 4

(11/2016 - 8/2018)

Age 29.08 (10.35) 28.24 (9.97) 31.47 (11.00) 27.40 (8.85) 27.77 (8.73) 22.50 (5.94) 33.17 (11.61)

Male 0.74 (0.44) -- -- 0.79 (0.40) 0.81 (0.39) 0.87 (0.33) 0.61 (0.49)

Married 0.48 (0.50) 0.41 (0.49) 0.65 (0.48) -- 0.43 (0.50) 0.16 (0.37) 0.63 (0.48)

Divorced 0.02 (0.15) 0.01 (0.08) 0.06 (0.23) -- 0.01 (0.11) 0.00 (0.07) 0.03 (0.18)

Widowed 0.03 (0.16) 0.00 (0.08) 0.08 (0.27) -- 0.01 (0.10) 0.00 (0.07) 0.04 (0.20)

Secondary education 0.46 (0.50) 0.47 (0.50) 0.42 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.53 (0.50) 0.45 (0.50) 0.39 (0.48)

Tertiary level education 0.17 (0.37) 0.17 (0.37) 0.16 (0.37) 0.36 (0.48) 0.20 (0.40) 0.06 (0.24) 0.14 (0.34)

Employed 0.49 (0.50) 0.60 (0.49) 0.23 (0.42) -- 0.47 (0.50) 0.46 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50)

Reasons for leaving:

Conflict or persecution 0.74 (0.44) 0.73 (0.44) 0.77 (0.42) 0.86 (0.35) 0.79 (0.40) 0.67 (0.46) 0.69 (0.46)

Economic reasons 0.16 (0.37) 0.19 (0.39) 0.09 (0.28) 0.11 (0.31) 0.17 (0.38) 0.21 (0.41) 0.14 (0.34)

Limited access to amenities 0.06 (0.22) 0.05 (0.21) 0.08 (0.27) 0.01 (0.06) 0.01 (0.11) 0.08 (0.26) 0.11 (0.30)

Other reasons 0.04 (0.21) 0.03 (0.20) 0.06 (0.25) 0.02 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) 0.03 (0.16) 0.06 (0.28)

Nationalities:

Syria 0.31 (0.46) 0.27 (0.44) 0.42 (0.49) 0.47 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48) 0.01 (0.09) 0.33 (0.47)

Afghanistan 0.21 (0.40) 0.22 (0.42) 0.15 (0.37) 0.24 (0.42) 0.28 (0.45) 0.01 (0.07) 0.20 (0.40)

Iraq 0.17 (0.38) 0.16 (0.36) 0.21 (0.41) 0.14 (0.35) 0.13 (0.34) 0.01 (0.09) 0.27 (0.44)

Nigeria 0.04 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.05) 0.26 (0.43) 0.00 (0.02)

Pakistan 0.04 (0.20) 0.05 (0.22) 0.00 (0.06) 0.06 (0.23) 0.07 (0.25) 0.01 (0.13) 0.01 (0.12)

Morocco 0.03 (0.16) 0.03 (0.18) 0.01 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) 0.05 (0.22) 0.03 (0.17) 0.00 (0.03)

Iran 0.08 (0.28) 0.07 (0.26) 0.12 (0.32) 0.05 (0.22) 0.05 (0.21) 0.01 (0.05) 0.16 (0.37)

Guinea 0.02 (0.13) 0.02 (0.15) 0.00 (0.06) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.030 0.11 (0.32) 0.00 (0.00)

Bangladesh 0.01 (0.11) 0.02 (0.13) 0.00 (0.02) 0.01 (0.08) 0.00 (0.06) 0.08 (0.26) 0.00 (0.00)

Senegal 0.01 (0.11) 0.02 (0.13) 0.00 (0.03) 0.01 (0.05) 0.00 (0.06) 0.08 (0.27) 0.00 (0.00)

N 31,148 23,054 8,094 1,638 12,708 4,599 12,203

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015-2018. Notes: Means (standard deviations). The sample sizes for some variables are different either due to missing data or because

they were not asked in each wave. Secondary and tertiary education refer to highest completed education.

Page 50: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

48

Table 2.b: Descriptive characteristics from Flow Monitoring Survey (25-64 ages)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6)

Variables Full sample Males Females Wave 1

(10/2015 - 12/2015)

Wave 2

(01/2016 - 11/2016)

Wave 3

(06/2016 - 11/2016)

Wave 4

(11/2016 - 8/2018)

Age 34.89 (9.32) 34.31 (9.07) 36.24 (9.75) 32.70 (8.32) 32.92 (7.80) 29.60 (5.03) 37.58 (10.23)

Male 0.70 (0.46) -- -- 0.80 (0.39) 0.79 (0.41) 0.87 (0.33) 0.59 (0.49)

Married 0.69 (0.46) 0.67 (0.47) 0.74 (0.44) -- 0.65 (0.47) 0.40 (0.50) 0.75 (0.43)

Divorced 0.03 (0.18) 0.01 (0.12) 0.07 (0.26) -- 0.02 (0.14) 0.01 (0.12) 0.04 (0.20)

Widowed 0.04 (0.20) 0.01 (0.01) 0.11 (0.31) -- 0.01 (0.13) 0.01 (0.11) 0.06 (0.23)

Secondary education 0.42 (0.49) 0.44 (0.50) 0.37 (0.48) 0.35 (0.47) 0.50 (0.49) 0.44 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48)

Tertiary level education 0.21 (0.41) 0.22 (0.42) 0.19 (0.39) 0.41 (0.49) 0.26 (0.44) 0.12 (0.32) 0.17 (0.37)

Employed 0.60 (0.49) 0.78 (0.42) 0.27 (0.44) -- 0.61 (0.49) 0.69 (0.46) 0.59 (0.49)

Reasons for leaving:

Conflict or persecution 0.74 (0.44) 0.73 (0.45) 0.76 (0.42) 0.86 (0.34) 0.79 (0.41) 0.69 (0.46) 0.68 (0.47)

Economic reasons 0.14 (0.35) 0.16 (0.37) 0.09 (0.28) 0.10 (0.30) 0.17 (0.37) 0.22 (0.41) 0.11 (0.32)

Limited access to amenities 0.05 (0.22) 0.05 (0.20) 0.08 (0.27) 0.02 (0.08) 0.01 (0.07) 0.06 (0.23) 0.10 (0.29)

Other reasons 0.07 (0.22) 0.06 (0.21) 0.07 (0.27) 0.02 (0.08) 0.03 (0.16) 0.02 (0.15) 0.11 (0.29)

Nationalities:

Syria 0.35 (0.47) 0.32 (0.47) 0.43 (0.49) 0.51 (0.50) 0.41 (0.49) 0.03 (0.07) 0.33 (0.47)

Afghanistan 0.16 (0.37) 0.17 (0.38) 0.14 (0.35) 0.15 (0.36) 0.20 (0.40) 0.01 (0.06) 0.16 (0.36)

Iraq 0.21 (0.41) 0.21 (0.41) 0.22 (0.42) 0.15 (0.36) 0.16 (0.37) 0.02 (0.15) 0.29 (0.46)

Nigeria 0.02 (0.16) 0.03 (0.17) 0.01 (0.11) 0.01 (0.08) 0.00 (0.05) 0.30 (0.46) 0.00 (0.01)

Pakistan 0.03 (0.18) 0.04 (0.21) 0.00 (0.05) 0.06 (0.24) 0.06 (0.23) 0.03 (0.17) 0.01 (0.07)

Morocco 0.02 (0.15) 0.03 (0.17) 0.01 (0.10) 0.02 (0.13) 0.05 (0.21) 0.18 (0.38) 0.00 (0.02)

Iran 0.12 (0.32) 0.11 (0.31) 0.14 (0.35) 0.07 (0.24) 0.06 (0.25) 0.01 (0.07) 0.18 (0.38)

Guinea 0.00 (0.07) 0.01 (0.08) 0.00 (0.05) 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.05 (0.22) 0.00 (0.00)

Bangladesh 0.00 (0.08) 0.01 (0.10) 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.07) 0.01 (0.05) 0.07 (0.26) 0.00 (0.00)

Senegal 0.01 (0.08) 0.01 (0.09) 0.00 (0.03) 0.01 (0.05) 0.01 (0.06) 0.06 (0.24) 0.00 (0.00)

N 18,875 13,220 5,655 925 7,475 1,428 9,047

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015-2018. Notes: Means (standard deviations). The sample sizes for some variables are different either due to missing data or because

they were not asked in each wave. Secondary and tertiary education refer to highest completed education.

Page 51: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

49

Table 2.c: Descriptive characteristics from IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Variables Full sample

(all ages)

Full sample

(all ages) males

Full sample

(all ages) females

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64)

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64) males

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64) females

Age 33.47 (10.37) 33.13 (10.59) 34.05 (9.97) 36.94 (8.56) 37.17 (8.67) 36.58 (8.37)

Male 0.63 (0.48) -- -- 0.60 (0.48) -- --

Married 0.67 (0.47) 0.60 (0.49) 0.80 (0.40) 0.80 (0.40) 0.77 (0.42) 0.84 (0.36)

Divorced 0.02 (0.15) 0.02 (0.12) 0.04 (0.20) 0.03 (0.17) 0.02 (0.13) 0.05 (0.21)

Widowed 0.02 (0.15) 0.02 (0.04) 0.06 (0.23) 0.03 (0.16) 0.00 (0.05) 0.06 (0.24)

Secondary education 0.49 (0.50) 0.49 (0.50) 0.49 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50)

Tertiary level education 0.27 (0.44) 0.26 (0.43) 0.30 (0.46) 0.28 (0.45) 0.27 (0.44) 0.30 (0.46)

Employed 0.62 (0.48) 0.79 (0.40) 0.35 (0.47) 0.68 (0.47) 0.87 (0.34) 0.39 (0.49)

Nationalities:

Syria 0.58 (0.50) 0.59 (0.49) 0.55 (0.50) 0.58 (0.49) 0.60 (0.49) 0.56 (0.50)

Afghanistan 0.13 (0.34) 0.13 (0.34) 0.13 (0.34) 0.12 (0.33) 0.12 (0.33) 0.12 (0.32)

Iraq 0.16 (0.37) 0.16 (0.37) 0.16 (0.37) 0.16 (0.37) 0.16 (0.36) 0.16 (0.37)

Pakistan 0.02 (0.11) 0.02 (0.14) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.11) 0.02 (0.14) 0.00 (0.00)

N 2,657 1,675 982 2,043 1,244 799

Source: IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees. Notes: Means (standard deviations). Following the definition used in Gallup World Polls, secondary education

refers to 9 to 15 years of education and tertiary education refers to completed four years of education beyond “secondary education”.

Page 52: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

50

Table 3: Descriptive characteristics from Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014

(1) (2) (3)

Full sample

(all ages)

Full sample

(all ages) males

Full sample

(all ages) females

Age 33.22 36.14 34.23

(14.68) (15.23) (14.00)

Male 0.51 -- --

(0.50)

Married 0.61 0.60 0.63

(0.49) (0.48) (0.48)

Divorced 0.02 0.02 0.03

(0.15) (0.13) (0.18)

Widowed 0.04 0.02 0.08

(0.21) (0.14) (0.27)

Secondary education 0.42 0.45 0.40

(0.49) (0.50) (0.50)

Tertiary level education 0.08 0.10 0.06

(0.27) (0.30) (0.24)

Employed 0.48 0.65 0.29

(0.50) (0.48) (0.45)

N 129,431 67,167 62,264

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64)

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64) males

Restricted sample

(ages 25-64) females

Age 39.31 39.95 38.63

(10.90) (11.13) (10.61)

Male 0.52 -- --

(0.50)

Married 0.76 0.77 0.76

(0.42) (0.42) (0.43)

Divorced 0.03 0.02 0.04

(0.17) (0.15) (0.20)

Widowed 0.04 0.02 0.08

(0.21) (0.15) (0.71)

Secondary education 0.37 0.40 0.35

(0.48) (0.49) (0.48)

Tertiary level education 0.10 0.12 0.07

(0.29) (0.32) (0.26)

Employed 0.55 0.75 0.33

(0.50) (0.43) (0.47)

N 89,484 46,493 42,991

Source: Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: Means (standard deviations). This table presents

summary statistics for source countries included in the analysis. Secondary and tertiary education refer

to highest completed education.

Page 53: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

51

Table 4: Educational attainment by source country

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Secondary education

(Full-sample)

Tertiary education

(Full-sample)

Secondary education

(Ages 25-64)

Tertiary education

(Ages 25-64)

Flow Monitoring Surveys

Syria 0.51 (0.50) 0.31 (0.46) 0.48 (0.50) 0.34 (0.47)

Afghanistan 0.45 (0.50) 0.13 (0.34) 0.39 (0.49) 0.19 (0.39)

Iraq 0.61 (0.49) 0.20 (0.40) 0.59 (0.49) 0.23 (0.42)

Nigeria 0.50 (0.50) 0.06 (0.23) 0.52 (0.50) 0.09 (0.29)

Pakistan 0.56 (0.50) 0.11 (0.31) 0.53 (0.50) 0.14 (0.35)

Morocco 0.66 (0.47) 0.09 (0.29) 0.63 (0.48) 0.11 (0.32)

Iran 0.44 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49) 0.41 (0.49) 0.45 (0.50)

Guinea 0.47 (0.50) 0.06 (0.24) 0.38 (0.48) 0.18 (0.39)

Bangladesh 0.39 (0.48) 0.02 (0.14) 0.44 (0.49) 0.05 (0.22)

Senegal 0.36 (0.48) 0.04 (0.20) 0.32 (0.47) 0.06 (0.23)

Gallup World Polls

Syria 0.37 (0.48) 0.07 (0.25) 0.35 (0.48) 0.09 (0.28)

Afghanistan 0.25 (0.44) 0.04 (0.19) 0.21 (0.41) 0.05 (0.22)

Iraq 0.46 (0.50) 0.13 (0.33) 0.43 (0.50) 0.15 (0.35)

Nigeria 0.71 (0.45) 0.03 (0.17) 0.69 (0.46) 0.04 (0.20)

Pakistan 0.27 (0.44) 0.05 (0.22) 0.24 (0.42) 0.06 (0.23)

Morocco 0.34 (0.47) 0.06 (0.25) 0.26 (0.44) 0.08 (0.27)

Iran 0.58 (0.49) 0.25 (0.43) 0.54 (0.50) 0.28 (0.44)

Guinea 0.16 (0.37) 0.06 (0.24) 0.12 (0.32) 0.08 (0.27)

Bangladesh 0.47 (0.49) 0.03 (0.16) 0.41 (0.49) 0.03 (0.18)

Senegal 0.39 (0.48) 0.02 (0.15) 0.33 (0.47) 0.03 (0.18)

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: Means (standard deviations). Secondary and tertiary education refer

to highest completed education.

Page 54: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

52

Table 5: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.022*** 0.045*** -0.006**

(0.002) (0.004) (0.002)

Tertiary education 0.037*** 0.049*** 0.016***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.005)

Employed 0.001 0.003 -0.001

(0.002) (0.003) (0.003)

Female -0.057*** -0.066*** -0.044***

(0.002) (0.003) (0.003)

Age 25-34 0.079*** 0.097*** 0.061***

(0.002) (0.004) (0.003)

Age 35-44 0.035*** 0.052*** 0.016***

(0.002) (0.004) (0.002)

Age 45-54 0.012*** 0.021*** 0.005***

(0.002) (0.003) (0.001)

Married -0.035*** -0.031*** -0.043***

(0.003) (0.005) (0.004)

Divorced -0.036*** -0.066*** -0.003

(0.006) (0.008) (0.008)

Widowed -0.013*** -0.015** -0.018***

(0.005) (0.007) (0.005)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.081 0.079 0.061

N 62488 34405 28083

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. All

specifications include source country fixed effects. Countries are classified by the level of conflict

following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes

countries with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in a given year over the sample period (Afghanistan,

Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-

related casualties in a given year over the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes

countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor conflict over the sample period (Bangladesh,

Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary

education, unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 55: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

53

Table 6: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, adults aged 25-64, males

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.021*** 0.045*** -0.010**

(0.004) (0.005) (0.004)

Tertiary education 0.036*** 0.053*** 0.008

(0.005) (0.007) (0.008)

Employed 0.012*** 0.029*** -0.011**

(0.004) (0.005) (0.005)

Age 25-34 0.107*** 0.126*** 0.095***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.005)

Age 35-44 0.043*** 0.068*** 0.021***

(0.003) (0.005) (0.003)

Age 45-54 0.014*** 0.028*** 0.005**

(0.003) (0.005) (0.002)

Married -0.062*** -0.067*** -0.059***

(0.005) (0.007) (0.006)

Divorced -0.081*** -0.133*** -0.001

(0.011) (0.013) (0.018)

Widowed -0.070*** -0.088*** -0.033**

(0.011) (0.016) (0.013)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.086 0.082 0.072

N 33253 18869 14384

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. Countries are

classified by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program:

major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in any of the years

over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category

includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-related casualties in any of the years over the sample period

(Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor

conflict in any of the years over the sample period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco,

Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor

force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 56: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

54

Table 7: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, adults aged 25-64, females

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.025*** 0.046*** 0.001

(0.003) (0.004) (0.002)

Tertiary education 0.045*** 0.057*** 0.028***

(0.005) (0.007) (0.006)

Employed -0.012*** -0.034*** 0.015***

(0.002) (0.003) (0.003)

Age 25-34 0.035*** 0.050*** 0.017***

(0.003) (0.005) (0.002)

Age 35-44 0.016*** 0.027*** 0.001

(0.003) (0.005) (0.001)

Age 45-54 0.003 0.009* -0.001

(0.002) (0.005) (0.001)

Married 0.024*** 0.039*** 0.005

(0.003) (0.005) (0.003)

Divorced 0.022*** 0.016 0.025***

(0.006) (0.010) (0.008)

Widowed 0.031*** 0.049*** 0.007*

(0.005) (0.008) (0.004)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.061 0.068 0.028

N 29235 15536 13699

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. Countries are

classified by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program:

major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in any of the years

over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category

includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-related casualties in any of the years over the sample period

(Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor

conflict in any of the years over the sample period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco,

Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor

force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 57: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

55

Table 8: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, adults aged 25-64, FMS sample only

(1) (2) (3)

Outcome: reason to migrate: conflict or persecution

Sample ➔ All Male Female

Secondary education 0.067*** 0.054*** 0.121***

(0.013) (0.015) (0.026)

Tertiary education 0.080*** 0.087*** 0.048*

(0.017) (0.019) (0.023)

Employed -0.027** -0.020 -0.006

(0.014) (0.003) (0.034)

Married 0.019 0.015 0.050

(0.014) (0.015) (0.049)

Divorced -0.009 0.026 0.013

(0.042) (0.057) (0.072)

Widowed 0.040 0.068 0.031

(0.043) (0.069) (0.070)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.359 0.350 0.429

N 4473 3553 920

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant

at 1%. Outcome variable, reason to migrate: conflict or persecution, is equal to 1 for respondents who cite conflict

or persecution as the main reason to migrate and 0 for other respondents who cite other reasons (economic reasons,

limited access to amenities and natural disasters and other reasons) in the Flow Monitoring Surveys. Reference

categories are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor force, and single.

Page 58: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

56

Table 9: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants into Germany from major conflict countries, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ Major conflict (both genders) Major conflict (males only) Major conflict (females only)

Secondary Education 0.036*** 0.033*** 0.042***

(0.003) (0.003) (0.004)

Tertiary Education 0.089*** 0.072*** 0.126***

(0.005) (0.006) (0.010)

Employed 0.023*** 0.043*** 0.001

(0.003) (0.003) (0.005)

Male -0.005* -- --

(0.003)

Age 25-34 0.024*** 0.014*** 0.030***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.005)

Age 35-44 0.028*** 0.022*** 0.030***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.005)

Age 45-54 0.016*** 0.013** 0.019***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.005)

Married 0.019*** -0.004 0.053***

(0.003) (0.005) (0.004)

Divorced -0.010 -0.039*** 0.032***

(0.008) (0.012) (0.010)

Widowed 0.003 -0.069*** 0.052***

(0.006) (0.008) (0.007)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.070 0.070 0.083

N 34180 18975 15205

Source: IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany, 2016 and Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant at 10%; **

significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for respondents in the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey

of Refugees and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. All specifications include source country fixed effects. Countries are classified

by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries

with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in a given year over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria). Reference categories

are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 59: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

57

Table 10: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants based on predicted income, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict Major conflict & singles Minor or no conflict & singles

Men and women

Predicted log income 0.080*** 0.103*** 0.047*** 0.035*** 0.002*

(0.004) (0.006) (0.004) (0.012) (0.000)

r2 0.045 0.042 0.011 0.071 0.011

N 62488 34405 28083 6839 5787

Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Men

Predicted log income 0.101*** 0.127*** 0.062*** 0.019** -0.015***

(0.006) (0.008) (0.007) (0.008) (0.004)

r2 0.050 0.048 0.012 0.093 0.043

N 33253 18869 14384 4648 3751

Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Women

Predicted log income 0.037*** 0.046*** 0.026*** 0.044*** 0.018***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.004) (0.008) (0.003)

r2 0.050 0.046 0.014 0.036 0.014

N 29235 15536 13699 2191 2036

Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome

variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. Countries are classified by the

level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related

deaths in any of the years over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-

related casualties in any of the years over the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor

conflict in any of the years over the sample period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal).

Page 60: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

58

Table 11: Sorting of refugees and irregular migrants in respect to Gini index, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary Education -0.180** -0.175** -0.143

(0.074) (0.079) (0.184)

Tertiary Education 0.405*** 0.081** 1.065***

(0.124) (0.033) (0.267)

Employed 0.227*** 0.118 0.557***

(0.081) (0.093) (0.162)

Female -0.014 0.021 -0.325

(0.111) (0.113) (0.340)

Age 25-34 0.513 0.304 1.690

(0.412) (0.446) (1.007)

Age 35-44 0.117 -0.037 1.231

(0.413) (0.446) (1.024)

Age 45-54 0.151 -0.009 1.319

(0.418) (0.448) (1.084)

Married -0.142* -0.200** -0.046

(0.084) (0.092) (0.187)

Divorced -0.582* -0.547 -0.104

(0.316) (0.370) (0.737)

Widowed -0.172 -0.226 -0.289

(0.287) (0.334) (0.538)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.306 0.394 0.113

N 3512 2650 862

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. World Development Indicators, 2016 or earliest

available. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Gini coefficient of

the intended destination country is the outcome variable and measured between 0 (no inequality), and

100 (perfect inequality). Countries are classified by the level of conflict following the definitions

provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or

more battle-related deaths in any of the years over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria,

Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-related

casualties in any of the years over the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes

countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor conflict in any of the years over the sample

period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal). Reference categories are as

follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 61: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

59

Table 12: Sorting of refugees and irregular migrants in respect of characteristics of destination countries, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Outcome ➔ Migrant integration

policy index

Average duration of

asylum procedure

Waiting duration for

labor market access

Social expenditure

(as percentage of GDP)

Unemployment rate

(log)

GDP per capita

(log)

Primary Educ. or less 0.844*** -0.035*** -0.072*** 0.687*** -0.092*** -0.044***

(0.270) (0.007) (0.014) (0.140) (0.019) (0.011)

Secondary Education 0.841*** -0.011*** -0.051*** 0.723*** -0.084*** -0.026**

(0.265) (0.003) (0.013) (0.137) (0.018) (0.012)

Employed 0.020 0.002 0.004 -0.136 0.024* -0.002

(0.189) (0.005) (0.009) (0.103) (0.015) (0.008)

Female 0.774*** 0.020*** 0.005 -0.384*** -0.042** 0.027**

(0.270) (0.007) (0.012) (0.132) (0.017) (0.011)

Age 25-34 -0.311 0.007 0.043 0.437 0.075* -0.014

(1.145) (0.030) (0.044) (0.369) (0.044) (0.039)

Age 35-44 0.460 -0.002 0.011 0.290 0.005 -0.012

(1.152) (0.030) (0.044) (0.370) (0.045) (0.039)

Age 45-54 0.357 0.010 -0.008 -0.314 -0.031 -0.004

(1.217) (0.031) (0.044) (0.393) (0.418) (0.040)

Married 0.637*** -0.001 -0.016* 0.068 -0.012 0.003

(0.190) (0.005) (0.009) (0.104) (0.014) (0.008)

Divorced 0.221 -0.032* 0.004 0.389 0.037 0.006

(0.676) (0.019) (0.029) (0.373) (0.045) (0.025)

Widowed 0.867 -0.001 -0.017 -0.356 -0.050 0.037

(1.008) (0.027) (0.034) (0.452) (0.056) (0.037)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.053 0.192 0.076 0.353 0.302 0.394

N 3509 3484 3509 3423 3492 3122

Source: Eurofound, Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016, MIPEX, OECD, World Development Indicators. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant

at 1%. Migrant integration policy index is a continuous variable (0-100, with 100 being the top score) and measures the country specific integration outcomes, integration

policies, and other contextual factors for migrants’ integration. Average duration of asylum procedure is the duration (number of months) between the submission of the asylum

claim and the first decision (rescaled from 0 to 1, with 1 being the longest duration). Waiting duration for labor market access is the waiting period (number of months) for

obtaining the work permit after claiming asylum (rescaled from 0 to 1, with 1 being the longest duration). Unemployment (log) is the unemployment rate in the intended

destination country in the survey year. Social expenditure is measured as a percentage of GDP and comprises cash benefits, direct in-kind provision of goods and services, and

tax breaks with social purposes. GDP per capita (log) is the gross domestic product per capita in current U.S. dollars in the intended destination country in the survey year.

Reference categories are as follows: tertiary education, unemployed or our of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 62: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

60

Table 13: Border policies and sorting of refugees and irregular migrants, adults age 15+

Outcome ➔ Intended destination country

(1)

Germany

(2)

Italy

(3)

France

(4)

Sweden

(5)

Austria

(6)

UK

Austria quota announcement 0.160*** -0.003 0.001 -0.059*** 0.016*** 0.002

(0.012) (0.003) (0.003) (0.007) (0.005) (0.003)

Austria imposes quota -0.004 0.012*** 0.006 -0.015*** -0.025*** -0.003

(0.010) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.003)

Hungary border closing -0.114 0.015 0.005 -0.055 0.030*** 0.018

(0.102) (0.016) (0.007) (0.085) (0.009) (0.009)

Slovenia and Macedonia border tightening -0.165*** 0.012* 0.020*** 0.046*** 0.010* 0.023***

(0.012) (0.006) (0.007) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)

Sweden border control 0.117*** 0.005 -0.015** -0.072*** -0.001 0.004

(0.023) (0.005) (0.006) (0.016) (0.008) (0.006)

Demographics Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Employment status before migration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Origin Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Survey Country FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.289 0.338 0.262 0.098 0.028 0.083

N 13983 13983 13983 13983 13983 13983

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016 – waves 1 and 2. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%.

Intended destination country is the outcome variable, which is equal to one if a refugee or irregular migrant names a particular country as their

country of destination and zero otherwise. Austria quota announcement is equal to one for interview dates after Austria announced this quota on

20th January 2016. Austria imposes quota refers to a dummy variable that is equal to one, if interviews were conducted after 19th February

2016, when Austria imposed a quota of accepting maximum 80 refugees or irregular migrants and a maximum of 3,200 people allowed

traveling through Austria per day. Hungary border closing is equal to one if the interview took place after Hungary closed its border on 16th

October 2015. Slovenia and Macedonia border tightening refers to the date on which Macedonia closed its border with Greece and Slovenia set

stricter border controls and it is equal to one if the interview was conducted after 9th March 2016. Sweden border control is equal to one, if

interviews took place after the 11th November 2015. For details on individual characteristics, see notes to Table 5.

Page 63: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

61

Table 14: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants into Turkey from major conflict countries, adults aged 25-64

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ Major conflict (both genders) Major conflict (males only) Major conflict (females only)

Secondary Education -0.033*** -0.041*** -0.017**

(0.005) (0.007) (0.008)

Tertiary Education 0.034*** 0.019* 0.086***

(0.008) (0.010) (0.014)

Employed 0.034*** 0.108*** -0.063***

(0.005) (0.007) (0.008)

Male 0.024*** -- --

(0.005)

Age 25-34 0.088*** 0.055*** 0.110***

(0.008) (0.011) (0.012)

Age 35-44 0.055*** 0.026** 0.081***

(0.008) (0.011) (0.012)

Age 45-54 0.031*** 0.006 0.054***

(0.009) (0.012) (0.013)

Married 0.082*** 0.030*** 0.149***

(0.006) (0.009) (0.009)

Divorced -0.005 -0.161*** 0.144***

(0.016) (0.020) (0.023)

Widowed 0.147*** -0.084*** 0.276***

(0.014) (0.022) (0.016)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.085 0.089 0.111

N 31525 17342 14183

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (Turkey only), 2016, 2017 and 2018. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2014. Notes: * significant at 10%; **

significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys

(Turkey only) and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls. All specifications include source country fixed effects. Countries are classified

by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries

with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in a given year over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria). Reference categories

are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 64: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

62

Appendix

Figure A.1: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, all country groups and by gender

Page 65: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

63

Figure A.2: Reasons to emigrate by origin country – for migrants who are in Turkey

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (Turkey only, 2016-2018) and authors’ calculations.

Figure A.3: Reasons to emigrate by intended destination country - for migrants who are in Turkey

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (Turkey only, 2016-2018) and authors’ calculations.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pa

lesti

ne

Ira

q

Syr

ia

Ira

n

So

ma

lia

Afg

ha

nis

tan

Pa

kis

tan

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

Conflict or persecution Limited access to amenities

Natural disasters/other reasons Economic reasons

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

resp

on

de

nts

Conflict or persecution Limited access to amenities

Natural disasters/other reasons Economic reasons

Page 66: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

64

Figure A.4: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, reason to migrate: conflict/persecution, FMS Turkey only

Page 67: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

65

Figure A.5: CDF for single migrants’ and single non-migrants’ predicted income, reason to migrate: others (i.e. all but conflict/persecution), FMS Turkey only

Page 68: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

66

Table A.1. Descriptive Characteristics from Flow Monitoring Survey – excluded countries

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Eritrean sample (all ages) Eritrean sample (ages 25-64) Small nationality group sample

(all ages)

Small nationality group sample

(ages 25-64)

Age 23.88 30.59 25.38 31.05

(7.01) (6.39) (7.28) (6.39)

Male 0.79 0.83 0.86 0.83

(0.34) (0.34) (0.34) (0.36)

Married 0.30 0.56 0.26 0.49

(0.40) (0.51) (0.44) (0.50)

Divorced 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01

(0.10) (0.13) (0.09) (0.13)

Widowed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

(0.09) (0.11) (0.07) (0.12)

Secondary education 0.61 0.57 0.49 0.51

(0.55) (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)

Tertiary level education 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.16

(0.35) (0.36) (0.33) (0.36)

Employed 0.45 0.73 0.46 0.64

(0.47) (0.48) (0.49) (0.48)

Reasons for leaving:

Conflict or persecution 0.96 0.96 0.65 0.63

(0.49) (0.49) (0.47) (0.48)

Economic reasons 0.02 0.03 0.26 0.26

(0.16) (0.44) (0.43) (0.44)

Limited access to amenities 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05

(0.15) (0.13) (0.18) (0.13)

Other reasons 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.06

(0.16) (0.18) (0.16) (0.19)

N 933 366 587 283

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Means (standard deviations). Columns 1 and 2 present summary statistics for Eritrea, which was not included in the

main analysis as it is not surveyed by Gallup World Polls. Columns 3 and 4 present summary statistics for 19 source countries that are not included in the analysis due to

small number of observations (i.e. less than 100 respondents): Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Cuba, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mauritania, Nepal, Niger, Palestine, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tunisia.

Page 69: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

67

Table A.2: Descriptive characteristics from Gallup World Polls, 2009-2011

(1) (1)

Full sample (all ages) Restricted sample (ages 25-64)

Age 33.20 38.87

(12.49) (10.51)

Male 0.51 0.51

(0.50) (0.50)

Married 0.58 0.73

(0.49) (0.44)

Divorced 0.02 0.03

(0.14) (0.18)

Widowed 0.03 0.04

(0.19) (0.20)

Secondary education 0.42 0.36

(0.49) (0.48)

Tertiary level education 0.08 0.10

(0.27) (0.30)

Employed 0.49 0.56

(0.50) (0.50)

N 65688 46270

Source: Gallup World Polls, 2009-2011. Notes: Means (standard deviations). This table

presents summary statistics for source countries included in the analysis. Secondary and

tertiary education refer to highest completed education.

Page 70: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

68

Table A.3: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, GWP 2009-2011

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.044*** 0.076*** -0.015***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.005)

Tertiary education 0.089*** 0.096*** 0.077***

(0.007) (0.009) (0.014)

Employed -0.004 -0.008 0.003

(0.004) (0.005) (0.007)

Male 0.107*** 0.113*** 0.093***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.006)

Age 25-34 0.153*** 0.166*** 0.130***

(0.005) (0.007) (0.006)

Age 35-44 0.069*** 0.088*** 0.032***

(0.004) (0.006) (0.005)

Age 45-54 0.025*** 0.036*** 0.009**

(0.004) (0.006) (0.004)

Married -0.049*** -0.037*** -0.080***

(0.006) (0.007) (0.008)

Divorced -0.041*** -0.076*** 0.021

(0.011) (0.014) (0.019)

Widowed -0.008 -0.010 -0.017*

(0.009) (0.013) (0.010)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.161 0.134 0.234

N 29401 19023 10378

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2011. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls (adults aged

25-64). All specifications include source country fixed effects. Countries are classified by the level of

conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program: major conflict category

includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related deaths in a given year over the sample period

(Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria); minor conflict category includes countries with 25

to 999 battle-related casualties in a given year over the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category

includes countries that did not experience a major conflict or minor conflict over the sample period

(Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than

secondary education, unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 71: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

69

Table A.4: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, males, GWP 2009-2011

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.039*** 0.070*** -0.021**

(0.006) (0.008) (0.009)

Tertiary education 0.082*** 0.097*** 0.047**

(0.010) (0.012) (0.019)

Employed 0.018** 0.037*** -0.024**

(0.007) (0.009) (0.012)

Age 25-34 0.209*** 0.225*** 0.197***

(0.007) (0.010) (0.011)

Age 35-44 0.096*** 0.126*** 0.046***

(0.007) (0.009) (0.008)

Age 45-54 0.034*** 0.057*** 0.004

(0.006) (0.009) (0.006)

Married -0.089*** -0.079*** -0.105***

(0.008) (0.010) (0.013)

Divorced -0.105*** -0.169*** 0.050

(0.020) (0.021) (0.038)

Widowed -0.104*** -0.120*** -0.046*

(0.020) (0.025) (0.027)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.171 0.144 0.243

N 16152 10650 5502

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2011. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls (adults aged

25-64). Countries are classified by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala

Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related

deaths in any of the years over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria);

minor conflict category includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-related casualties in any of the years over

the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes countries that did not experience a major

conflict or minor conflict in any of the years over the sample period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte

d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary education,

unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 72: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

70

Table A.5: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, females, GWP 2009-2011

(1) (2) (3)

Sample ➔ All Major conflict Minor or no conflict

Secondary education 0.048*** 0.078*** -0.002

(0.005) (0.007) (0.005)

Tertiary education 0.108*** 0.111*** 0.115***

(0.010) (0.012) (0.020)

Employed -0.029*** -0.063*** 0.036***

(0.005) (0.006) (0.007)

Age 25-34 0.073*** 0.085*** 0.041***

(0.006) (0.009) (0.005)

Age 35-44 0.030*** 0.040*** 0.002

(0.005) (0.008) (0.004)

Age 45-54 0.008 0.011 -0.001

(0.005) (0.008) (0.003)

Married 0.049*** 0.063*** 0.013*

(0.006) (0.008) (0.007)

Divorced 0.056*** 0.046*** 0.064***

(0.013) (0.017) (0.021)

Widowed 0.067*** 0.083*** 0.021**

(0.009) (0.014) (0.010)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.121 0.108 0.207

N 13249 8373 4876

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys, 2015 and 2016. Gallup World Polls, 2009-2011. Notes: * significant

at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Outcome variable, refugee/migrant, is equal to 1 for

respondents in the Flow Monitoring Surveys and 0 for participants in Gallup World Polls (adults aged

25-64). Countries are classified by the level of conflict following the definitions provided by Uppsala

Conflict Data Program: major conflict category includes countries with 1000 or more battle-related

deaths in any of the years over the sample period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria);

minor conflict category includes countries with 25 to 999 battle-related casualties in any of the years over

the sample period (Algeria, Iran); no conflict category includes countries that did not experience a major

conflict or minor conflict in any of the years over the sample period (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte

d'Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary education,

unemployed or out of labor force, female, age 54+, and single.

Page 73: Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into ... · Refugees’ and Irregular Migrants’ Self-Selection into Europe: Who Migrates Where? Abstract . About 1.4 million

71

Table A.6: Self-selection of refugees and irregular migrants, adults aged 25-64, FMS Turkey sample only

(1) (2) (3)

Outcome: reason to migrate: conflict or persecution

Sample ➔ All Male Female

Secondary education 0.210*** 0.244*** 0.163***

(0.009) (0.012) (0.014)

Tertiary education 0.029** 0.085*** -0.037

(0.014) (0.017) (0.024)

Employed 0.051*** 0.116*** -0.010

(0.011) (0.015) (0.017)

Married 0.026* 0.016 0.030

(0.014) (0.017) (0.029)

Divorced -0.033 0.008 -0.041

(0.029) (0.056) (0.040)

Widowed -0.010 -0.044 -0.012

(0.023) (0.048) (0.035)

Country FE Yes Yes Yes

r2 0.246 0.259 0.237

N 8761 5187 3574

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys (Turkey only), 2016, 2017 and 2018. Notes: * significant at 10%; ** significant

at 5%; *** significant at 1%.Outcome variable, reason to migrate: conflict or persecution, is equal to 1 for

respondents who cite conflict or persecution as the main reason to migrate and 0 for other respondents who cite

other reasons (economic reasons, limited access to amenities and natural disasters and other reasons) in the Flow

Monitoring Surveys (Turkey only). Reference categories are as follows: less than secondary education, unemployed

or out of labor force, and single.

Table A.7: The share of male and female migrants aged 25-64 with tertiary education in different waves

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Males – wave 1 Males – wave 2 Males – wave 4 Males - SOEP

Afghanistan 0.25 (0.44) 0.18 (0.39) 0.04 (0.20) 0.45 (0.49)

Iraq 0.39 (0.49) 0.22 (0.42) 0.24 (0.42) 0.34 (0.47)

Pakistan 0.11 (0.32) 0.15 (0.36) 0.02 (0.14) 0.20 (0.41)

Syria 0.49 (0.50) 0.33 (0.46) 0.16 (0.37) 0.21 (0.41)

Females – wave 1 Females – wave 2 Females – wave 4 Females - SOEP

Afghanistan 0.43 (0.50) 0.13 (0.34) 0.04 (0.19) 0.38 (0.50)

Iraq 0.52 (0.51) 0.19 (0.39) 0.16 (0.37) 0.45 (0.50)

Pakistan -- -- -- --

Syria 0.53 (0.50) 0.32 (0.47) 0.11 (0.31) 0.24 (0.43)

Source: Flow Monitoring Surveys and IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany, 2016. Note: Number of

observations is low for females in Wave 1 and too low to be reported for female migrants from Pakistan.